Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Procurement Projects

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European partners about defence procurement projects. [30882]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): British Ministers frequently discuss collaboration and defence projects with Ministers in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Mr. Congdon: Given the importance of the defence industry to the British economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration with our European partners on defence projects can lead to economies of scale and larger markets? Does he also agree, however, that we must not forget the strategic importance of our relationship with the United States, and that any decisions on defence procurement should therefore be based on cost-effectiveness?

Mr. Portillo: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's proposition. The fact is that, if the United States produces weapons for its own market, it may have a production run 10 times as long as any single European state can have. Therefore, getting together to agree our specifications and requirements in Europe offers great benefit, but to cut ourselves off from the United States, which has a technological edge in many of these areas, would of course be absurd. Therefore, our policy should be to achieve a balance between collaboration in Europe and collaboration with the United States. Of course, value for money and the effectiveness of the product for our services should also be important considerations.

Mr. Spellar: We note once again that the criteria that the Secretary of State just outlined, ignored the key question of the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. Will he now assure us that it will be a key priority in procurement decisions?

Mr. Portillo: I am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to follow these matters. I made a speech in Paris last week in which I made it clear that it was one of the very important criteria for the United Kingdom that we should maintain a British industrial base. However, I am concerned about what we

heard in the debate on the Royal Air Force last week, when we heard from the Labour party about its intention to shut off exports of defence products from this country. That would be extremely damaging to jobs in this country and would also make procurement from British industry much more expensive. The time has come for Labour to say just how it intends to restrict our exports of defence products so that people may know how many jobs will be lost and where they will be lost.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaborating with our European partners means that we can maintain our research and development base but that it should not mean the creation of a European armaments agency run from Brussels, which would be of no use whatever to this country?

Mr. Portillo: Clearly, there is a need for getting together with other countries in Europe to see what agreement we can reach on specifications. For some time, a group has been working within the Western European Union—that is the appropriate place for it to be, not the European Union—to see whether we can bring 13 countries together. There is a bilateral effort involving the French and Germans, which we are now joining, to see whether, between those three big players in Europe, we can reach some accord on specifications. That is the right way to proceed, but if my hon. Friend is saying that there is not a role in this for the European Community, the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice, I entirely agree with him.

Redundancies

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for further compulsory redundancies in the armed services; and if he will list the numbers in each service to be made redundant in each of the next three years. [30883]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): No further redundancies are planned beyond those already announced.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister recall that the 1992 Conservative party manifesto said that cuts of 27 per cent. would devastate our conventional forces? How does he reconcile that analysis with the fact that, through progressive salami slicing that has undermined morale, his Government have cut the armed forces by more than one third?

Mr. Soames: I know that it might have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, but since that time the cold war has ended, the Berlin wall has come down, the Warsaw pact has gone home and we are operating in a totally changed and entirely different strategic environment. To suggest that the services could have remained still and unchanged against such a background is idle folly. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party is presently proposing to take £4.5 billion out of the defence budget, a conference decision that is binding on the Labour party?

Mr. Trotter: Is not the strength of our forces based on our spending more than the European average on defence? Would not the cut of £4,000 million a year that was


approved by the Labour party at its conference and is supported by many Opposition Members lead to a great reduction in the strength and capability of our forces and many redundancies, not only in the services but in the industry that supports them?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a devastating case on his own account. He is absolutely right. Such a move would be deeply damaging, not only to Britain's strategic and commercial interests, but to the very fibre and backbone of the nation. Our armed forces are a golden asset for the United Kingdom. The Conservative party has looked after them well and will continue to do so.

Industrial Participation

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards industrial participation. [30885]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Where we invite bids that involve significant overseas work, we routinely invite bidders to offer proposals that would provide equivalent work in the United Kingdom. That helps to ensure that similar defence work is available to United Kingdom companies.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that, under the Conservative Government, no fewer than 345,000 skilled workers have lost their jobs? Does he accept too that the Government's hands-off approach to Britain's defence industry needs have betrayed those thousands of workers who served Britain so well for many years?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Far from it. Our defence industry is going from strength to strength and we take something like 19 per cent. of the world export market. We are second only to the United States. It is second only to our best ever achievement in the world. That is a pretty good achievement for British industry.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at another variety of industrial participation—participation by civil aviation interests in a military aerodrome, Royal Air Force Northolt, which has a special place in the armed services? Will he give me a robust assurance that RAF Northolt will remain a military aerodrome and not become a feeder-reliever airport for Heathrow, as was proposed by the Select Committee on Transport?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend will no doubt have read the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in the RAF debate last Thursday. RAF Northolt is already a heavily used military base and it would be difficult for it to take very much more.

Ships (Construction Programme)

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction programme of ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [30886]

Mr. Arbuthnot: We asked for tenders for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and contract negotiations with VSEL continue. The timing of any order is subject to the satisfactory outcome of those negotiations. We hope to conclude them shortly.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can take enormous pride in the manner in which we have re-equipped our armed forces in recent years? Every member of the armed forces must give thanks every day that we have not had a Labour Government, because they would have raped the procurement programme in their search for a peace dividend. Does that success not make it even more surprising that there have been delays in the acquisition of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? What is the latest date by which a contract must be agreed in order for those vessels to enter service by the planned date of 2001?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the latest date for which he asked, because I do not wish to tie my hands in negotiations. However, I hope that he will agree that, as we have the youngest Navy since the second world war, we have indeed equipped our Navy very well, as my hon. Friend said in the opening part of his question. I hope that he will also have listened very carefully to the way in which I phrased my earlier answer, because I gave him news that I have never before given: we hope to conclude the negotiations shortly.

Mr. Hutton: Although I welcome any progress in the placing of orders for those vital ships for the Royal Navy, does the Minister agree that the procurement contract has been subject to extensive and totally unacceptable delays, which have not only compromised the Royal Navy's amphibious capability but threatened many jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No. What would threaten jobs in British industry would be the cutting of £4 billion from the defence budget. We have managed to maintain a very young Navy. In the negotiations over the landing platform dock replacement, we have also been achieving a good deal for the Ministry of Defence, the taxpayer and the company involved, since we are improving its management practices at the same time. We hope to conclude the negotiations shortly. This country's amphibious capability is not in doubt. I need point only to the recent launch of HMS Ocean and all the extensive capability that that implies to prove exactly that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of maintaining HMS Fearless during the recent operation in the Atlantic shows the urgency of the need for a replacement, but more importantly, that the Government accept the need for two replacements for two ships? That is the important issue.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there was a great difficulty in maintaining HMS Fearless during the Purple Star exercise. She performed extremely well. There was a highly successful amphibious off-load from her, which was one of the highlights of the exercise. She remained operational throughout and is now leading an amphibious


task force in the Caribbean. She is doing very well and is in a better material state than she has been for very many years.

Officers' Children (Education)

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent in the current year on private education and support of officers' children in the armed forces; and if he will break down this figure between male and female children. [30887]

Mr. Soames: The total cost to my Department of the boarding school allowance for the academic year 1994–95 was £107 million. Information concerning the breakdown of that by boys and girls is not recorded.

Mr. Simpson: I am sorry that the latter piece of information is not available, but it is good to see that the Government are not averse to all forms of public subsidy. How would the Minister justify that subsidy to schools in the east midlands, which can barely afford to cover their running costs and where at least one is having to seek commercial sponsors for its toilets and toilet rolls? Would not the subsidy policy make more sense if the Government shifted it from heavily pampered schools to those that are barely provided for?

Mr. Soames: That is an outrageous question. I hope that the services heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The boarding school allowance is not an education subsidy. It is a function to allow service personnel access to education. It is paid to assist service families in providing a stable education for their children in the face of an extremely turbulent and frequently mouvementé service life, which can lead to great difficulties for service families. The allowance is paid regardless of rank and it is an extremely important part of service life.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to recruit and retain capable people—the leaders of tomorrow—is to ensure that they know that their children will have a stable education that is paid for by their employer during the critical stage of their schooling? There is nothing odd about that, especially since we have asked them to go off to Bosnia at short notice.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understands the importance of the scheme to the overall ethos of service life. It is extremely important that soldiers, sailors and airmen—of whom a great deal is asked—have the assurance that their families are being well cared for. That is something that we can do to help service families during what is frequently a turbulent period in their lives.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the boarding school allowance for those who are genuinely eligible, especially those men and women serving on UN peacekeeping missions abroad? Is he aware that many of us are deeply worried about the poor standards of some of the private schools in the scheme? Will he introduce a more thorough inspection system to exclude some pretty rotten schools?

Mr. Soames: In the light of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, the hon.

Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we accept no such proposition. We watch the intellectual gymnastics of the Labour party with admiration. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything Labour has said for 15 years has been wrong, and it has made a terrible mistake. We will not buy that, nor will the country.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In his supplementary question, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred to the people who benefit from the boarding school scheme as "pampered". Will my hon. Friend remind the House that those people serve this country and risk losing their lives?

Mr. Soames: I am happy to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, which I thought was disgraceful. We owe much to our service men and women, who serve in serious and extremely dangerous conditions. They have every right to know that their families are well provided for, and the Conservative party will ensure that that remains the case.

Sri Lanka (Training)

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held recently with the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the provision of training to the Sri Lankan armed forces. [30888]

Mr. Soames: In March the then commander of the Sri Lankan army visited the United Kingdom to discuss a range of issues with the Chief of the General Staff and others. More recently a British Army officer has visited Sri Lanka to discuss training matters. Details of the discussions are confidential between Governments.

Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware of the reports that Vietnam veterans from the United States are now in Colombo training the Sri Lankan army in guerrilla warfare? Will he confirm that British Army personnel will not get involved in such training? Instead, should we not say to both Sri Lanka and the US that a military solution to the Sri Lanka's problems is not possible and that they should be looking for a negotiated settlement?

Mr. Soames: I am happy to confirm that that is so. The United Kingdom has provided low-level training assistance, including developmental and technical courses for Sri Lanka. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospects of peace. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to monitor the situation closely, and we all hope that a peaceful negotiated settlement can be arrived at shortly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the negotiations started by the new President and Prime Minister in Sri Lanka were disrupted by bombs? Does he realise that the Sri Lankan army is in great need of the expertise that the British Army can provide in training officers to work against a guerrilla army? That would ensure that the civilian population could be properly protected in the Jafna peninsula. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the recommendation from our embassy in Sri Lanka that we increase the military advice and aid that we give to Sri Lanka?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will realise that I study all such applications with great care. There is immense demand for access to United Kingdom military training, both at home and abroad. Last year, 4,270 students from 117 different countries attended training courses in the United Kingdom. That illustrates the high regard in which our armed forces are rightly held throughout the world and the excellent reputation of our military training. I take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Rapid Deployment Force

Sir Dudley Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of a joint rapid deployment force. [30889]

Mr. Portillo: The joint rapid deployment force will enhance our fighting capability by creating a force trained and equipped to respond effectively and speedily to future crises. The JRDF will be drawn from a range of assigned units from all three services, enabling the permanent joint headquarters to assemble a force appropriate to any particular operation.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a role for the Western European Union to play in that context, especially in the light of the combined joint task force agreement that was arrived at in Berlin by the NATO council only last week?

Mr. Portillo: I am not sure whether I have ever had the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work as president of the WEU assembly. He does a wonderful job, much to the credit of his country.
My ambition is that the joint rapid deployment force be a thoroughly flexible force that is available for national contingencies, for NATO and as part of a combined joint task force within NATO. Thanks to the agreement made in Berlin last week by NATO Foreign Ministers, it could naturally play a part in a combined joint task force under the political control of the WEU, should there be a Europe-only operation.

Mr. Hardy: While I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about the work of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) in the WEU, does he expect us to believe that, given the Government's enormous cuts in the manpower of Her Majesty's forces in the past few years, any rapid deployment force could be immediately viable or exist other than on paper?

Mr. Portillo: Yes. It is going to exist. It is being brought together at the moment. It will be a highly effective force based on 3 Commando Brigade and 5 Airborne Brigade. It will have available all the support units that it may need. It will be carried forward in such a way that training between the various components will be a matter of routine. The hon. Gentleman should not be misled; this will not be a paper exercise but an important new capability for the British armed forces. He should direct his attention to his party's proposals to cut defence from where we are now by a further £4.5 billion.

Mr. Churchill: May I, through my right hon. Friend, pay tribute to the superb job that British forces are doing

in Bosnia through their participation in IFOR? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in all future rapid deployments overseas, British forces, where appropriate, are provided with air-portable, air-conditioned and air-filtered operating theatres? The Defence Select Committee had that lack drawn to its attention during our recent visit to Bosnia.

Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It has been a magnificent and highly successful operation. We are in danger of forgetting how complex it has been, how much planning was necessary, how successful was the logistical support, how much risk there was and how well it has been done. I believe that our forces have had at all times the appropriate medical back-up, but I agree that, when one is engaged in an operation of such size, it is sensible to take stock of the lessons that can be learned. I am keen to make sure that we learn the lessons for the medical and other fields. I undertake to consider that carefully.

Bosnia

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans are being prepared for the withdrawal of British forces from Bosnia after 20 December. [30890]

Mr. Portillo: IFOR' s mandate expires at the end of the year and we intend to withdraw UK forces at the same time as our NATO allies.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation in Bosnia does not bode well for the withdrawal of our troops on 20 December? Perhaps the whole situation needs to be re-examined. That date is only six months ahead. The families of British forces in Bosnia regard 20 December as a significant date because it is close to Christmas. Many expect that the serving forces will be back home for Christmas. Would it not be appropriate to renegotiate with our allies in Bosnia and seek a more distant date to take account of the present situation?

Mr. Portillo: First, I should be frank with the hon. Gentleman and say that 20 December is the date on which the IFOR mandate ends. He should not read into that that the forces will be home on that date. That is the day that the operation ends. I anticipate that the ending of IFOR will lead to a withdrawal of troops over weeks, and possibly months, after that.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many aspects of the Bosnian situation do not bode well. What is important is that the international community develops an overall political strategy to deal with the many parts of that problem—humanitarian problems, the need for reconstruction, the need to rebuild the economy, the need to prop up the Croat-Muslim federation, and the need to provide police forces and training. As a small part of that, we need to consider what, if any, need there may be for a military presence in 1997. It would, however, be premature to reach conclusions about that now.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British troops will continue to be involved in the implementation force in Bosnia after the 20 December


deadline only if, first, it continues to be a NATO operation, and if, secondly, there is a substantial involvement on the part of our United States allies?

Mr. Portillo: Yes. I cannot conceive of any operation in Bosnia of a military sort that is not a NATO operation. I believe it is essential that in any NATO operation in Bosnia the United States should be involved alongside, and on the same terms as, her allies in the alliance.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will recall that the purpose of deploying NATO forces, including British troops, in former Yugoslavia was to bring peace and stability, and to assist in the reconstruction of the civilian infrastructure of that country. If, without undue risk to British troops, we can continue to help to fulfil those objectives as part of a NATO force, should we not now express our willingness to do so? That of itself would assist stability and civilian reconstruction.

Mr. Portillo: Although I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, I think that the point is debatable. I am not sure that announcing an open-ended commitment to a military presence in Bosnia would be helpful in creating stability. On the contrary, it might stop the necessary concentration of minds among the former warring factions on the idea that eventually they have to make a peace for themselves. I also believe that what the implementation force was set up to do will have been achieved by December: the forces will have been separated, they will have gone back to barracks and they will have surrendered their weapons, which will be in points of storage.
The question is: what is needed in 1997? As I have already said today, what is most needed is an overall political strategy; as part of that we can consider whether any military operation is necessary.

Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is there not a real problem to do with the fact that, of the moneys pledged for the reconstruction of Bosnia, only about 20 per cent. has thus far appeared? Does not that mean that, at the end of the year, the situation in Bosnia may be such that it will be difficult for IFOR troops to withdraw? Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge all his colleagues in government to bring pressure to bear on the countries that are not paying the moneys that they have pledged to reconstruction, so that they get on and pay up promptly?

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend reinforces my point that we need not just a military option for Bosnia but a total package of international help, including money and reconstruction. While it is possible to conceive of a 1997 military operation which is part of a political strategy, it would be unacceptable to conceive of a 1997 military operation instead of a political strategy.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Secretary of State had time to read today's excellent Select Committee report on Bosnia, outlining serious inadequacies in medical provision, the provision of housing and the provision of sanitary facilities? Will he assure the House that the MOD's shortcomings outlined in the report will be rectified and that the mistakes experienced in the IFOR

operation will not be repeated—if it proves necessary and desirable, as I believe it will, that British troops have to stay on in Bosnia after December 1996 in order to continue their peacemaking activities?

Mr. Portillo: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has shown a lack of feel for the complexities of a military operation. It is outstanding that, within a one-month period—between December last year and January this year—we deployed approximately 13,000 soldiers, in the dead of winter, in the interior of Bosnia. We got them there, we kept them supplied and we provided them with ammunition, equipment, housing, sanitary facilities and medical facilities—and the hon. Gentleman has said that they were not exactly what he would have liked them to be. We learn lessons from every military operation, and we shall learn lessons from this one. For the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that this operation has been anything but an outstanding success for our forces and for the logisticians who supported them is unworthy of him.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current role of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [30891]

Mr. Portillo: IFOR has made excellent progress in implementing the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. It is now putting increased effort into supporting civil programmes, such as the rebuilding of schools, hospitals and public utilities.

Mr. Winnick: Given the good work of IFOR, does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for the future of Bosnia that the notorious war criminals, Karadzic and the general, as well as some war criminals on the Croatian side, are brought to justice? Will IFOR undertake that task? Does the Secretary of State accept that the chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague has stated time and time again that war criminals who are wanted for terrible crimes against humanity should be brought to justice as quickly as possible?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, they should be brought to justice. I can conceive of no lasting peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless those people are brought to justice, unless the evidence against them is heard and unless a verdict is reached in each case. As the hon. Gentleman has heard during the course of these exchanges, IFOR has a primary duty: the separation of the forces and now the provision of a secure environment in which the elections can be held. Within IFOR's mandate, IFOR has made it perfectly clear that it recognises its duty to hand over war criminals to the authorities so that they may be brought to justice.

Mr. Key: Given the outstanding success of Britain's contribution to IFOR, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in future deployments in peacekeeping and peace enforcement, notice will be taken of, and advice will be sought from, the protection and life sciences division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? We would then have the best possible and the healthiest troops in the field, which would avoid some of the minor problems that were encountered by our forces in Bosnia.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made a valuable suggestion. He speaks with great authority and with the benefit of having visited Bosnia. In addition, he has the long experience of a large number of service people in his constituency. I will consider what he said very carefully.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that, without the military's backing, the work of IFOR in underpinning its work and all the grand civilian work of reconstruction could not proceed, and the peace would disappear? Is it not clear that an IFOR mark 2 or some form of military backing must continue after December if peacemaking and reconstruction are to continue?

Mr. Portillo: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but I cannot go any further than I already have this afternoon in my statements. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, if it is his view that there can be no proper civil operation without military back-up, it is my view that there could not be a military operation with any chance of success unless it were part of an over-arching political strategy by the international community.

Anti-ballistic Missile System

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of the feasibility study on an anti-ballistic missile defence system. [30892]

Mr. Arbuthnot: Our national pre-feasibility study on defence against ballistic missiles, which was conducted by a consortium led by British Aerospace, has recently been completed and we expect to receive its final report shortly.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is entirely conceivable that Europe and Britain will come within range of long-range ballistic missiles supplied by North Korea and possibly China to north African and middle eastern pariah states long before the medium extended air defence system is put in place to defend Europe as planned in 2005, and that the need for a ballistic missile defence of Europe is now urgent? What discussions has he had in sharing this sense of urgency with his NATO and Western European Union colleagues? What has been the outcome of these discussions?

Mr. Arbuthnot: We are concerned about the emerging risks and we are doing something about that, both nationally and with our allies. Only a fortnight ago, I was fortunate to visit the national test facility and the ballistic missile defence office in the United States, where I was enormously impressed by the important and very interesting work that is being done. We expect to take decisions by the end of the year.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the consequences of the Ariane catastrophe for anti-ballistic missile research?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I believe that there are none at the moment.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that at this stage we should talk up the real threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, most important,

by the ability of some countries to launch nuclear, chemical or biological threats beyond their own borders? Does he agree that it would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of this or any other Government not to notify the public of the serious and growing threat to this island?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the matter. There are two issues involved: the defence of our troops in theatre and the defence of our national integrity. Both issues are important, but we believe that the first must have priority at the moment.

Operation Purple Star

Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels chartered by his Department to take part in Operation Purple Star were British-registered. [30893]

Mr. Soames: Madam Speaker—

Mr. Trickett: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) must resume his seat when another hon. Member is asking a question.

Mr. Soames: The answer is none, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Turner: Does the Minister agree that history reminds us of the heroic role played by the British merchant fleet in the life of this country? Does he agree further that that proud naval history is under threat because the Government have betrayed the British merchant fleet by not engaging one British ship? They have commissioned the ships of virtually every other country in recent times.

Mr. Soames: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The Government have taken many positive steps to improve the competitiveness of British shipping and to encourage more shipowners to fly the red ensign. They include generous funding for training, liberalisation of officer nationality requirements, changes in registration laws and the introduction of roll-over relief on capital allowances.
Only 37 British—flagged ro-ros—the roll on/roll off ships to which the hon. Gentleman refers—are militarily useful, and all of them are currently on extended charter. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should disrupt their charters in time of peace simply for the sake of buying British. We believe that we have a very satisfactory system for chartering ships through the Baltic exchange. We will continue to use that to gain best value for money for the taxpayer and the best possible use for our armed forces.

Mr. Devlin: One civilian ship that we do not have to charter in time of war is the royal yacht, Britannia. I urge my hon. Friend to consider commissioning a fast, modern replacement ship which Her Majesty could use, which could be utilised in our trade promotion work around the world and which could be built in the north-east of England.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend tempts me down a path that I am reluctant to tread. No decisions have yet been made about the future of Britannia. However, the hon. Gentleman clearly has a formidable case to make regarding the north-east of England and I am sure that the House has noted his comments.

Procurement Decisions

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department makes of the industrial implications of procurement decisions. [30894]

Mr. Arbuthnot: We have always taken industrial factors into account in defence procurement decisions. We have recently taken steps to ensure that that happens in a more systematic way.

Mr. Chisholm: I am glad that there has been a slight improvement recently. Is it not high time that the Government took account of this country's employment and industrial base in awarding defence contracts and abandoned the hands-off approach that they have adopted in the past 17 years? Is the Minister aware that more than 300 jobs at GEC-Marconi Avionics in my constituency depend on the awarding of the Sea King airborne early warning contract? The rival bids involve far more development and manufacturing work that is being done overseas. [Interruption.]

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman's question was clearly greeted with enthusiasm. He makes his constituency point in the way in which I would expect him to do, but I remind him that some 90 per cent. of work by value done for the Ministry of Defence is won by British companies in this country.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that defence procurement contracts awarded to this country are vital to the maintaining of our manufacturing capacity? Will he continue to look favourably on Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency, which is operating successfully at home, in Europe and overseas to win contracts in the face of stiff and—it must be said—not always fair competition?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I was pleased to be able to announce recently the award of a contract for Royal Ordnance—partly, if I may say so, on the urging of my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard for her constituents in this regard.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30912]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister heard today's admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)

that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire— [HON. MEMBERS: "Billionaire."] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?

The Prime Minister: I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election—I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that—but he is not going to change our policy.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night's bizarre proceedings.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.

Mr. Blair: It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union—in the presence of Ministers—to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?

The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.

Mr. Blair: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman's political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country's role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right


for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.

Mr. Blair: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?

The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party's policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men's association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30914]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where

large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?
Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making my part of the world a market-testing-free zone on the basis that, if something is working, one should not fix it? Why put profit before the national interest? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Falklands and Gulf wars, RAF Sealand gave magnificent service to Britain? That is all that it wants to continue to do.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way—it is the right policy—but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure's marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30915]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?

The Prime Minister: This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman's allegation has any


foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined—so that it can be repudiated.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30916]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company's products?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend's constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week—simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past—and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.

Mr. Benn: How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there

was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.

The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein's exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein's hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERS)

Mr. John Hutton, supported by Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dame Jill Knight, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Jane Kennedy and Mr. Julian Brazier, presented a Bill to make provision for the courts to impose an offender supervision order on persons convicted of certain sexual offences against children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Referendum

Mr. William Cash: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the need for changes to the treaty on European Union affecting the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the Union and its participation in European monetary union and a single currency; to provide for the action to be taken consequent on the results of the referendum; and for connected purposes.
My Bill is not about whether the United Kingdom should be "in or out", as the federalists claim. It is about the national and European interest and about what sort of Europe we are in, where we are going and whether the British voters should be allowed to have their say before it is too late. Nor is it a matter of left or right, as my list of sponsors shows clearly. They properly range across the national political spectrum, Conservative and Labour, including Privy Councillors, former Cabinet Members and the leader of the Ulster Unionists. The Democratic Unionist party also supports the Bill, as do many others who cannot be here today.
As recent opinion polls show, British voters want to remain in the European Community for trade and political co-operation, but they do not want a federal Europe. The Prime Minister is right when he says that, if member states insist on federalism, Britain will not follow them. The problem is that, under the Maastricht treaty, we are surfing on a tide of federalism. Even today, France, Germany and the other member states are pressing for the removal of the veto for foreign and defence policy.
The treaty does not allow us to prevent other member states from going ahead with a single currency and states that it is irrevocable. Even if Britain were, say, to exercise its opt-out, which the Government are not at present prepared to do, a future Government could still join.
The prescription, therefore, is for an irreversible move to monetary union, and thus political union too. No wonder the electorate is confused, particularly since the original White Paper of 1971 stated that we would not give up the veto or our sovereignty and that we would not become part of a federation—although that is now denied by the Euro-fanatics. Even Lord Howe of Aberavon refers to the Government's position as taken to an "unsustainable extreme" and says:
There is no such thing as a European people.
The outbursts from the unelected official, Jacques Santer, over the beef crisis illustrate my case and reveal the underlying and deeper problem of democratic legitimacy. Mr. Santer says that the hour of truth has come. In the words of William Blake, I would reply to him:
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
The question is who governs Britain and how.
There are fundamental reasons for holding a proper referendum in the United Kingdom before the intergovernmental conference is concluded, after our general election next year. Who represents Britain at that conference will be crucial to the national interest. The Government have already properly agreed in principle to hold a referendum, but only if a Conservative Cabinet says yes to a single currency. That qualification is, or ought to be, unthinkable, because a single currency would

destroy our parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, Chancellor Kohl and the Euro-federalists' obsession with political union and the consequences of a hard-core Europe would also undermine the single market.
In the light of the present failings of the European Union and the exchange rate mechanism, which almost destroyed the British economy, the situation is made worse by the Government's White Paper on Europe, which is faithfully endorsed by those on the Opposition Front Bench. It states:
If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to propose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view.
In other words, we will not insist on, let alone propose, treaty amendments to rule out monetary union and a single currency and the fundamental elements of a federal Europe. Hence the referendum question in my Bill.
The official Opposition are running away from the problem. The official Labour party position is in favour of managed exchange rates and monetary union, so it would press on with failed policies, generating massive unemployment for those who would be duped by them.
The Liberal Democrats say that they want a referendum, but only after the next IGC, when the fundamental question of a single currency for Europe is embedded in the Maastricht treaty itself. On the question of a federal Europe, the Liberal Democrats are not even supported by those who vote for them. It is hurting, but not working.
Since the Maastricht treaty was signed, evidence has multiplied that EU policies—for example, on unemployment and on Bosnia—are not working. Europe and the United Kingdom are now faced with damaging uncertainty and instability. We are in danger of being caught up in an unaccountable, introverted and collapsing Europe which fails to address modern problems of international competitiveness. A responsible IGC would address all those questions.
The electorates are increasingly opposed to the main proposals laid down at Maastricht by the political elite. In Germany, a majority of the electorate are now opposed to a single currency, and no one could suppose that in France the electorate would now vote in favour of Maastricht. In Spain, unemployment is running at 23 per cent.
Britain has a responsibility to use the IGC to put forward political amendments to the treaty, to avoid European government and to re-evaluate where all this is going. Britain must take a lead. The beef crisis is symptomatic of the deeper malaise affecting Europe, including German domination—which looks like leaving Britain on the outer rim of a federal Europe. If we insist on fundamental amendments to the treaty, not least to monetary union and the proposed single currency, we can open up the vital questions, throughout the electorates of Europe, about Europe's future before it is too late.
By reducing the competences of European government, largely conferred by Maastricht, we would prevent a federal Europe and curtail the power of the European Court of Justice to adjudicate on political issues, including those arising from monetary union. A federal Europe involves surrendering the levers of national democratic government to central unelected officials and a remote and unrepresentative European Parliament.
We should insist that the UK's decisions about its national interests be made before the conclusion of the IGC and not by the Maastricht timetable. The Government and the official Opposition both decline to propose those fundamental amendments to the treaty, which are necessary in our own and in Europe's interests, to ensure that we can govern ourselves in the areas that really matter. A proper referendum is required of those who will be most affected—the voters themselves. The judgment of the people is now required.
I urge the House to support my Bill.

3.38

Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose the motion on a number of grounds. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that it was not the intention of the Bill to secure the withdrawal of this country from the European Union. I think that he is being totally disingenuous. There are many people on the Conservative Benches—and, perhaps, one or two on the Labour Benches—who have a scarcely hidden agenda to have this country withdraw from the European Union.
Europhobes are now in control of the Conservative party. It was scandalous to see the way in which the Prime Minister refused to stand up for this country inside the European Union and to stop running. He was invited by the Leader of the Opposition to stand and fight, but he did not. He is letting his party be run by Conservative Europhobes.
The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned BSE and fishing, but the issue is not BSE and fishing—it is about the position of this country in the European Union. Those issues are being used as a way of attacking this country in the European Union, and it is totally disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
The Government have got themselves into an impossible position over BSE. One could see it coming. The Government have made it quite clear that they want the European Union to back down, but the European Union is not going to back down. Jacques Santer was quite right to remind the Government that other European Union countries are not prepared to let us walk all over the European Union—[Interruption.] Yes, to walk all over the European Union, and to refuse to agree with the proposals that we ourselves introduced in the Council of Ministers. It is an absurd situation, and the Government have not allowed themselves an escape route.
The European Union is a free association of independent and sovereign nations, and, sooner or later, they are going to say to Britain, "If you do not like the rules, there is the door. You can walk out and you can leave." If that were to be the case—if Conservative Europhobes were to get their way—it would be disastrous for this country. There is no future for this country, economically or politically, outside the European Union—[Interruption.] It is about time that that was recognised.
The final point—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be heard. He does not have to be listened to, but he will be heard. There is a very important distinction between those two.

Mr. Banks: Madam Speaker, he will be listened to and he will be heard by Conservative Members.
I am not one of those who opposes the idea of a referendum. I want the argument about Britain's future in the European Union to be taken out of here and into the country so that the matter can be properly argued. There is too much discussion among the chattering classes about Britain's future in the European Union. I should be quite happy and prepared to debate the issue outside, with my constituents and with the constituents of any Conservative or Labour Member.
I do not like this ten-minute Bill because I do not want the House and our democracy to be dictated to by a rich greengrocer, and I do not care how rich or distinguished a greengrocer he is. I do not understand why someone who is a member of the European Parliament—in France—who apparently lives in Mexico and who pays no taxes in this country can go out and start buying up our political process. I do not care whether Tory Members of Parliament are defeated, but I want to ensure that they are defeated properly—at the ballot box by British people—and not by greengrocers over in France, who live in Mexico.
On all those grounds, I oppose leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 1.

Division No. 139]
[15.43 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Alexander, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawksley, Warren


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jessel, Toby


Bendall, Vivian
Key, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Body, Sir Richard
Legg, Barry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Leigh, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Livingstone, Ken


Budgen, Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Butcher, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Marland, Paul


Carttiss, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Cash, William
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Churchill, Mr
Mills, Iain


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Colvin, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Pawsey, James


Day, Stephen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Duncan Smith, Iain
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dunn, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Fry, Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gallie, Phil
Simpson, Alan


Gardiner, Sir George
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gill, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gorst, Sir John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Spearing, Nigel






Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Steen, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stewart, Allan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


 Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Graham Riddick.


Tracey, Richard





NOES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Rupert Allason.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Cash, Mr. John Redwood, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir Peter Tapsell, Mr. John Townend, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. David Martin.

REFERENDUM

Mr. William Cash accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the need for changes to the treaty on European Union affecting the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the Union and its participation in European monetary union and a single currency; to provide for the action to be taken consequent on the results of the referendum; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, it is an important tradition of the House, which you have upheld on many occasions, that if a Member opposes a motion or a Bill, he or she is obliged to vote against it. My understanding is that the solitary Member who voted against the Referendum Bill was not the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who opposed it. There were several shouts of "No". Surely—if they had any courtesy—the hon. Members involved should apologise to the House.

Madam Speaker: No, that is not quite correct. An hon. Member who opposes a Bill need only raise his voice in opposition and does not have to go through the No Lobby. It is a matter of raising one's voice.

Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I hope that it is not another bogus point of order.

Mr. Banks: No, Madam Speaker. Although I have the same name as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who opposed the Bill, I was the one who voted against it.

Madam Speaker: How very enlightening. I would like more points of order like that. Are there any more? No, so we shall move on.

Orders of the Day — Opposition Day

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Standards in Education

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move,
That this House believes that raising standards in schools is essential for the economic prosperity and social cohesion of the nation; notes the appalling disparity in skills between the UK and other developed nations; condemns the Government's obsession with structures at the expense of standards; and further urges Ministers to concentrate their efforts on providing excellence for all rather than returning to the divisions of the past.
I must commiserate this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Education. It is one thing to have one's Back Benchers against one; it is quite another to have the chairman of one's party and the Prime Minister against one. When the Secretary of State makes a statement tomorrow to the Confederation of British Industry conference about discipline, detention and dealing with bullies, perhaps she could start with her own party and make it clear that she is not prepared to put up with the bullying tactics of the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who throws his weight about in suggesting that the Prime Minister, having given a particular task—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am keeping Conservative Members awake—

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Not very successfully.

Mr. Blunkett: If I am not doing so very successfully, a little whole-class teaching, which I intend to give this afternoon, is needed.
When the Prime Minister gave the Secretary of State the very simple task of quietening down education issues and asked her to ensure that there was quiet in the teaching profession and that the divisions caused by her predecessor were set to one side, obviously she genuinely believed that he meant it. Over the past few months, we have seen quite the opposite. It was intended that the Secretary of State should come out fighting, with a right-wing agenda, to repeat exactly the performance of her predecessor with a set of proposals that had already been rejected not only by parents, governors and teachers, but by her own party. I commiserate with the Secretary of State because it is impossible for her to know exactly what is expected.
What is absolutely certain is that 17 years of failed Tory policies, floundering, disarray and waste have undermined the chance genuinely to lift standards, opportunity and excellence for all children in this country.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am totally astonished that the hon. Gentleman has so much sympathy


for the Government. Has not the Labour party changed almost every policy that it has put forward in the past 20 years, never mind 17 years?

Mr. Blunkett: As I shall show this afternoon, every time Labour announces a policy, the Secretary of State comes up with her own version of it a few days later. [Laughter.] I am delighted to share in the amusement of Conservative Members. The opinion polls should suggest a different story to those who find the matter funny. With Labour having a 39-point lead on education and an even bigger lead on the issue of standards, I do not think that the Tories have anything to laugh about at all. We are trouncing the Conservative party on every single issue in education, because—after 17 years of failure—we are concentrating entirely on lifting standards, achievement and opportunity for all our children in every school in every community in Britain. We are not concentrating on providing a privileged education for a few, and mediocrity for the many.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by junior members of the Secretary of State's education team, who are being threatened by the chairman of the Conservative party. He is suggesting that a rabid right winger is needed in the Secretary of State's team to bring a little sharpness to the debate. I look forward to the reshuffle that may take place in July, when I shall find out who that rabid right winger might be.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bill Cash.

Mr. Blunkett: I doubt that it will be the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), on the grounds that that would be going one step too far in terms of European union. The Tory party should be making more effort to match the standards that exist in other European countries. The indictment is that, on every single statistical estimate available, the Conservatives have failed to match what is happening in other developed countries around the world.

Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that education is run locally? Is he aware that the Labour party has been in charge of many local authorities for 50 or 60 years, and that standards in those authorities, which include Hackney and Islington, are deplorably low? How can he pretend that the Labour party stands for higher standards, when in practice it achieves absolutely nothing?

Mr. Blunkett: I thought that the Government had announced that they had decentralised and devolved responsibility from local education authorities to schools. I thought that they took pride in the local management and local funding arrangements for schools, and in the fact that they had taken away what they describe as the "control" of local authorities.
Now, as with everything else, someone else is to blame for what has happened in the past 17 years. They are the BSE Government—the "blame somebody else"

Government. They will not take responsibility for anything. Who has been directly in charge of the teacher training colleges and institutions that the Secretary of State will be dealing with, if not tomorrow, certainly in the forthcoming White Paper? Who has been responsible for not providing a clear curriculum within teacher training institutions? Who is responsible for the failure to provide a minimum level of time for teaching the basics in teacher training? Who has been in charge of those teacher training institutions that have failed to equip teachers to provide discipline and a disciplined environment in the classroom? Who is responsible for the failure to deliver the essential, basic provision to five, six and seven-year-olds? It is certainly not local authorities or Labour councils; it is entirely because of 17 years of successive Conservative Secretaries of State being removed in a desperate effort to try to improve the situation that they have messed up.

Mr. Graham Riddick: If a Labour Government were elected, would it retain the services of the current chief inspector of schools, Mr. Woodhead?

Mr. Blunkett: The question rests with the Secretary of State, who is in danger of having someone declare a by-election in what might euphemistically be termed a Conservative safe seat to allow the head of Ofsted to step into Parliament and take her place, for which several Conservative newspapers have called recently. If I were Secretary of State, I would make a decision that would ensure that everyone responsible co-operated. I would not divide the service. I would concentrate not on selection, grant-maintained status or structure but on the key task of giving our children the same life chance that they would have if they lived in France, Germany or Switzerland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment.
The statistics are clear. A third of our 11-year-olds are falling two or more years behind those countries on maths or literacy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research programme shows that, even with children spending more time in education, compared with the Swiss they are falling two years behind in maths by the time they reach 11. GCSE and A-level results show that we reach only half the performance levels of the French or Germans or some of our south-east Asian competitors. We have everything to be ashamed about and little to be proud of in respect of the way in which the Government have mismanaged the education service. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who has been very persistent.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On education policy U-turns, does the hon. Gentleman recall his attack in the Sheffield Star only 18 months ago, when he condemned people who
preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area.
Is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done so the reason for the hon. Gentleman's U-turn?

Mr. Blunkett: I dealt with that silly question in the previous education debate, when the hon. Gentleman


asked it in exactly the same terms. I understand now why the electorate are so unenamoured of the Government. They hear the same old tripe week after week, and month after month. Let me talk about what people want to hear about—the real lessons of education.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall make some progress before I give way again.
The key lesson is that we should never ration excellence. If excellence is rationed to the few, the talent of the many will eventually inevitably be excluded from the opportunity for excellence. The second lesson, which follows directly from that, is that selection has failed. It failed historically and it is failing in the present climate. We have only to take the Prime Minister's word for it. Only a few months ago he said:
The top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not.
Not only is that an indictment of 17 years of Conservative Government, but it shows what happens when children are segregated so that high standards and quality are provided only to the few and not to the many.
All this explains why the Secretary of State is so opposed to grammar schools. It is why, during her term as education chair in Norfolk, she did not review or reverse any of the proposals implemented over the previous four years, under a Conservative Government and a Conservative county council, to remove grammar school status and provide comprehensive education. It is also why, except for the eccentric right, no one wants to bring grammar schools back, and why selection is anathema. It is why the idea of a grammar school in every town is laughable. Spending between £2.5 billion and £3 billion on providing grammar schools for 5 per cent. of the population, while 19 out of 20 children will then inevitably attend what would become secondary modern schools, is an insult to the intelligence of parents.
This is why we reject the idea, why parents have rejected it for the past 30 years, and why the former Prime Minister spent so much of her time as Education Secretary ensuring that she removed grammar schools. Just 10 days ago, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was reported in The Times Educational Supplement as saying that "Margaret" had signed the closure of more grammar schools than any other Minister. He added that when he had pointed this out to her once or twice,
she glared at me and changed the subject.
Of course she did, because Tory party policy at the time was clearly against grammar schools and selection, and in favour of introducing comprehensive education.
The problem is—the past 17 years are a good example of this—that under Conservative Governments children have not been provided with the sort of comprehensive schooling that gives everyone an opportunity to succeed.

Dr. Robert Spink: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that grammar schools would not be allowed under a Labour Government. He must be aware that his party's leader has said that parents whose children currently enjoy the benefits of grammar schools can vote

to retain them if they so wish. Does he support his leader's policy; if so, does he believe it inconsistent to allow those who enjoy the benefits of grammar schools to retain them but not to allow others to vote for those benefits by voting for new grammar schools in their areas? If choice is to mean anything, people must be given that choice.

Mr. Blunkett: I was not sure—I gather from radio broadcasts that Ministers are not sure either—that Tory party policy would allow local populations to vote on the matter, thereby reopening all the votes in local elections of the past 30 years to remove grammar schools and ensure open access and admission policies. But let me answer the question directly: I wrote the policy, so of course I am in favour of it. I wrote the policy, suggesting that we will not permit selection, but where grammar schools already exist, parents with a direct interest in their children's admission to them will have a vote. That seems perfectly fair to me.
We already know what people think and feel. Although the Secretary of State is engaged in a battle with Cabinet colleagues over whether there should be 15, 20, 25, 40, 50 or 100 per cent. selection for all schools, an experiment is already taking place. Grant-maintained schools are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake by examination, yet only 43 of them have chosen to take up the option. So the notion that the percentage to be selected is the big issue of the moment is nonsense.
The issue of the moment is how we can transform our education system—how we can get to the point where every 11-year-old who does not have a specific special educational need can read, write and add up to the level of their chronological age. The issue is how we can transform our education system, through nursery provision and through primary education, so that every child has the ability to reach their full potential and thereby to make selection an absolute irrelevance.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is not the problem that some rich and powerful parents are able to exercise selection by bussing their children from one side of London to the other? That being the case, what choice would the hon. Gentleman give to parents in west London, for example, who would expect to be able to feed into the Oratory school but are unable to because some parents bus their children in from the other side of London? They have no choice; they have no selection. What would the hon. Gentleman do about that? What would he say to those parents?

Mr. Blunkett: When the Conservative Government introduced the London Government Act 1963, they permitted people across the then Inner London education authority to choose—as denominational parents have done over the decades—to send their children to the school of their preference. I did not know that Conservative Back Benchers were against that; I did not know that they would be arguing against Catholic parents being able to choose a Catholic school, whether it is voluntary aided or otherwise. Let me make it absolutely clear that the whole task of lifting standards rather than meddling with structures is to ensure that parents can make genuine choices, because real opportunity exists, because every single school is performing at its best.
I shall be clear about rich and powerful parents—they are the ones who buy private education.

Mr. Hughes: Middle-class left-wingers.

Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not talking about middle-class left-wingers; I am talking about the 20 out of 23 members of the Cabinet, from the Prime Minister down. Those in the Cabinet who have not bought private education are desperately fighting to stop the education system of this country being completely divided and ruined once again by a squabble over structure—including, apparently, the Secretary of State, who is losing hands down.
Let me be absolutely clear about privilege. If we abandon state education and give up on it because we cannot achieve those levels, because we cannot get every 11-year-old up to the level of their chronological age and because we cannot ensure that every comprehensive school delivers the goods, we would do exactly what the Government have done. We would say to people—as the Deputy Prime Minister has said—"We will allow you to `escape' from the inadequacies of inner-city education under the Tories."
What have the Government done? They did not lower class sizes and they did not intervene to help bring about real change—they doubled the assisted places scheme. They undermined state education and then encouraged people to leave it. What sort of confidence and faith can anyone have in a Government who doubled the assisted places scheme instead of attracting people into the state sector? The Government should have said to middle-class people, "We will save you money. You will not have to spend your hard-earned pounds on buying private education because we will invest in making it good enough for your children." Instead, they doubled the assisted places scheme at a time when we have record numbers of classes with more than 30 pupils in primary education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): No, we do not.

Mr. Blunkett: The junior Minister has said that we do not. There are now 1.6 million children in primary education who are being taught in classes of more than 30. Pupil-teacher ratios have risen for the fifth year running. The statistics would have hit the headlines if the Government had got them right the first time round. The Government cannot add up, nor can they spell. They have issued press releases that have misspelt the Isle of Wight—it has been spelt "White". The Government are not literate or numerate. Is it any wonder that the rest of the population are struggling? The most indictable statistic is that more than 41,000 young men and women left our schools last year at the age of 16 without any qualifications.

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he intends to move on, but it is important to put on record the fact that, according to the latest figures that I have seen, there are fewer primary school pupils in classes of more than 30 and 35 than there were in 1979.

Mr. Blunkett: Which set of latest statistics is the Minister talking about? Some 1.6 million children are

desperately seeking a Government who will pay not for a handful of people to go to the private sector but for lower class sizes at the key infant stage in order to ensure that all five, six and seven-year-olds learn to read, write and add up. Teachers need the time and the space to do the job. The Government will achieve that end not by providing a paper promise of nursery education, but by providing genuine, free, professional and high-quality nursery places. That should be followed by teaching the basics in classes that are small enough to manage. Targets must be set throughout primary education following a baseline assessment that is made when a child enters a reception class. In that way we shall begin to transform our education system.
We propose to change teacher training, to set targets and to establish a task force and we are committed to achieving those aims by the second parliament under a Labour Government. That programme represents the beginning of a process of matching the achievements in the rest of the world.

Sir Donald Thompson: Nursery education in my constituency is at 94 per cent.—and it has been at that level for the past 20 years. That figure has been achieved through the co-operation of local authorities of all political colours. Predominantly Conservative Governments—at least for the past 17 years—have provided enough money to pay for 94 per cent. of nursery education. My local authority has chosen to make that provision while other local authorities have chosen to waste their money in other ways. Consequently, we have had to ring-fence the money for nursery education by giving it to the parents so that local authorities that do not have high nursery education priorities cannot cheat them any longer.

Mr. Blunkett: I knew that the intervention would be a good one. The hon. Gentleman should reflect not upon what the Conservative Government have given to Calderdale, but upon the way in which the local authority—comprising parties of all political persuasions—has prioritised nursery education. It did so against the backcloth of a letter that the hon. Gentleman received from the Secretary of State 18 months ago suggesting that expenditure on nursery education was a diversion from real expenditure on mainstream schooling.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the Government's voucher scheme, money will be clawed back from Calderdale for the four-year-olds for whom it provides in order to offer a paper promise in areas where there is no existing provision. If we couple that with the fact that administration costs could go directly to providing new places, we find that the hon. Gentleman is arguing my case for me. I am very grateful to him.
We have announced a range of measures in recent months. On truancy and exclusion, we emphasise the importance of tackling disaffection and of allowing schools the option of a one-term exclusion rather than 15 days or permanent exclusion from the school. Ten days later the Secretary of State announced not three months, but 45 days. That announcement was 10 days late and three weeks short of our own announcement.
At the end of May, I said that something drastic should be done about teacher training. I called for an immediate project to ascertain what has happened to those who have


undergone teacher training in the past five years. The Secretary of State is to say something about teacher training tomorrow. There is a major shortage of English and maths teachers. The number of teachers who are qualified to teach those subjects has dropped dramatically by 22 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively. Last year's GCSE results saw a drop of 1.9 per cent. in maths, and a 2.8 per cent. drop in English.
Last year, we announced that we considered head teacher training to be a crucial prerequisite for anyone taking a headship; the Secretary of State then announced the same. We announced baseline assessment targets and home-school contracts; the Secretary of State announced them a few days later. We made an announcement about education for 14 to 19-year-olds at the end of March; the Secretary of State made the same announcement 10 days later, on the back of the Dearing inquiry. We have announced that we are in favour of extending local management of schools, and I gather that the White Paper will probably follow us.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: Certainly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can add his own examples.

Mr. Hawkins: I have been following Labour education policy for many years. Is not the hon. Gentleman's attempt to rewrite history a complete travesty? During the past few months, he and the leader of his party have tried to apologise for everything that Labour and the militant teachers it has supported have stood for for over 17 years. Is he not really admitting today that the Conservatives have been right all along, and trying to rewrite Labour policy in the Conservative shadow?

Mr. Blunkett: I find it difficult to take anything seriously from someone who is abandoning his constituency for the chicken run because he knows that education policy, and Tory party policy generally, will result in his losing his seat. Let me deal with the issue head on, however.
Seventeen years of Conservative government have led us to announce a series of programmes and changes that the Conservatives have failed to introduce during those two decades. We are announcing programmes because the Conservative Government have not done so; we are talking about changes and improvements in standards because they have not happened. I could name many more improvements that are needed— for instance, the repair and renewal of buildings. It will be interesting to see whether the Secretary of State has anything to say about that, in the White Paper or elsewhere.
Let me repeat that we will ensure that the £3 billion backlog of repair and maintenance of schools throughout the country—a Tory legacy of neglect—is dealt with directly through a new public-private partnership which will not be exclusive to grant-maintained schools, but will be available to every school in the country. We will ensure that teachers teach, and children learn, in classrooms that are warm, safe and fit to work in, and that everyone has the opportunity of a decent education, wherever they live and whatever their background.
We are talking about transforming the life chances of our people. We are talking about transforming access to further and higher education. We are talking about our "Target 2000"—our aim to ensure that by the year 2000 every 18-year-old will have reached at least qualification level 2. We will transform and replace youth training in order to achieve that goal, and offer every young person who has been out of work, education or training for more than six months the opportunity of a job, a learning place or a position in the voluntary sector.
With £1 billion allocated from a windfall tax, we will transform young people's life chances. We will tackle head on the skills shortage that the Government will reveal as the biggest own goal of Euro 96 when they announce on Thursday, that, after 17 years, they are falling further and further behind our European partners and our competitors across the world. There are skills shortages at a time of high unemployment; and the Government are failing to match, or even begin to match, their own targets. Forty per cent. of people have advanced qualifications, compared with a target of 60 per cent. That is a failure unequalled anywhere in the developed world.
We are not talking simply about revealing failure—about league tables and inspections that tell us what is going wrong, but do nothing to put it right. We are talking about rectifying as well as revealing: about ensuring that we intervene, and spread excellence and achievement from one school to another and from area to area. We will use the education authority as the voice and advocate of parents, not to control, but to support and to work with schools in achieving their goals. The family of schools should share resources and specialisms, and link through new technology to make it possible to ensure that, instead of rationing to a few, we are able to open up opportunities to the many.

Mr. David Lidington: I accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments that national initiatives must be translated into best practice, school by school and classroom by classroom. Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity now to say that he and his party have full confidence in the independence, integrity and programme of work of the current chief inspector of schools?

Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry, but it is not my job to answer questions about the chief inspector of schools. It will be my job shortly, God willing, and I will then answer questions. Is it not interesting that a Secretary of State under siege, who is doing her best to fulfil the mandate that she was originally given, is now taking second place to an appointed official? Is it not a shame that Conservative Back Benchers have to ask me, the shadow Secretary of State, what I will do about the chief inspector of schools? It is the chief inspector's job to reveal the inadequacy, the failure and the abysmal performance of 17 years of Tory government, and it will be our job to do something about those problems.
We will offer support as well as pressure. We will unite parents, teachers and governors with their education authorities, schools and central Government, to do the job. The Government have failed to do that job, as, I am sorry to say, has the Secretary of State. When we get the chance, we will unite this country to make education the key to economic prosperity and social cohesion. That is


the pledge from the Labour party—not structure, not status, not muddle and not selection, but excellence and standards for everyone.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the measures which Her Majesty's Government has introduced to raise educational standards through greater diversity and parental choice, the establishment of a common framework for the curriculum, assessment and regular testing, greater self-government for schools and colleges, and enhanced accountability through inspection and the publication of performance information; and welcomes the increases in achievement and participation which have followed.'.
I am grateful to the Opposition for tabling this debate. It is a pity that they thought fit to devote only half a day to educational standards, but of course they have always been rather half-hearted on the subject. Consider the double-speak we have just had to endure from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He has been so little in evidence over the past few days that The Times has taken to describing him as Labour's health spokesman. The hon. Gentleman may wish he was, because it is obvious that he has an impossible task.
In the confused shambles that constitutes Labour's education policy, the hon. Member for Brightside cannot reconcile the words or the actions of his Front-Bench colleagues or the structure of education with his own views, with those of the left-wing Campaign group of his party or with those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), or—since the hon. Member for Brightside talked a lot about polls— with those of 74 per cent. of Labour parliamentary candidates. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, but he should save it for himself.
The hon. Member for Brightside is confused, and who can wonder? He opposes grant-maintained schools, but the Labour leader is sending his son to one. The hon. Gentleman opposes grammar schools, but now he finds that the shadow health spokesman—the real one—has chosen to send her son to one. To cap it all, the hon. Gentleman thought he was safe in opposing cuts to child benefit, until he found that the shadow Chancellor had overruled him.
Nor can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his new-found enthusiasm for standards with the practice of those town halls up and down the land where Labour has long held sway. The hon. Gentleman's seemingly interminable speech clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and plain humbug of Labour's so-called education policy. It is difficult to know how the hon. Gentleman kept a straight face. He must surely know which party presides over the worst educational standards in the land. I will remind him.
Labour controls the boroughs of Islington, Tower Hamlets and Southwark, where 20 per cent. of seven-year-olds are illiterate—a fact exposed by the recent Ofsted report. Labour controls Islington, which also has the poorest GCSE results in the country. Some caring parents living in Islington—such as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—choose schools for their children outside that borough, which is not quite a vote

of confidence in the Labour comrades. One wonders who took part in the opinion poll about which we heard so much from the hon. Member for Brightside—not, I think, Islington parents, who vote with their feet.
Who is in power in Tower Hamlets, which has the highest truancy rates in the land? Labour, of course. Who controls Nottinghamshire, where last year the local education authority denied 11-year-olds the right to sit their standard assessment tests although that is the law of the land? Who deprived those pupils? It was Labour. At Hackney Downs, the LEA reduced a once outstanding grammar school to the state where it had to be closed—although there were only eight pupils per teacher and it cost nearly three times the national average to educate each pupil. Who is in charge in Hackney? Labour.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State comment on Labour-controlled Northumberland, where only two schools have gone grant-maintained? One did so by two votes, with the opposition of most of the parents when they realised what that decision meant. The other school went grant-maintained because there was a proposal to close some primary schools in the county because of its sparse population. Northumberland is at the opposite end of the scale that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Can she say anything critical about Northumberland and its education authority?

Mrs. Shephard: Last year, Northumberland county councillors complained that their education budget fell short by £700,000, but awarded councillors £500,000 in increased meal and travel allowances. They also should have known that the case of Hackney Downs shows convincingly that there is no connection between resources and results. There may be some connection between Labour councillors and higher meals and mileage allowances.
The lack of a connection between resources and results can be seen in the 10 LEAs that produced the poorest GCSE results—Islington, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Manchester, Lambeth, Newham, Hackney, Liverpool and Haringey. Every one of them produced results way below the national average, and most incurred expenditure per pupil above the national average—nine out of the 10 with Labour in control.
If the hon. Member for Brightside and his colleagues are so concerned about standards, opportunities for all our children and Britain's competitiveness, why do we not hear from the hon. Gentleman outright condemnation of those of his Labour comrades who have allowed such scandalous situations to develop? We hear not a word. All we hear are the footsteps of Labour Front Benchers opting out for their own children and voting with their feet.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I implore my right hon. Friend not to move on without referring to Derbyshire, which was omitted from her list. Is she aware that places such as Bolsover and Chesterfield have one nursery school for every 6,000 or 7,000 of the population, whereas High Peak and the Derbyshire dales have one nursery school for up to every 22,000? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures reveal not only reprehensible management but show that downright political bias determines Labour education policy?

Mrs. Shephard: The story of Derbyshire's local authority would fill a book, or many books. I am delighted


that my hon. Friends lose no opportunity to expose the extraordinary goings-on and the extraordinary identification of priorities that we have seen in that authority.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that she is criticising the political control of the LEAs, not the teachers, who are professional, dedicated and do an excellent job? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the increase in the number of youngsters in higher education from one in eight to one in three is one of the greatest achievements of the Government, and that it would be put at risk if she were to adopt policies that Labour advocates, such as doing away with the student grant and child benefit?

Mrs. Shephard: It is extraordinary that, while claiming that they want to give incentives to young people to continue in education and training, Labour Members use as their means a tax on parents of £560 per child. The increase in numbers going into higher education represents a welcome increase in standards of achievement over the past 16 years. However, as I am always ready to admit, there is a great deal more to do.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) paid a graceful compliment to good teachers. He is right to do so. However, it is a fact that Labour Administrations cannot deliver. Labour equals poor leadership, which allows poor teaching, and the result is abysmally low standards of achievement and millions of children deprived of their right to a good education.

Mr. Blunkett: I should like to clarify this, because it is important for the months and years ahead. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that it is not possible for teachers to teach well, for heads to lead or for education officers to give support if the councillors are not of the best in those individual authorities? I should be grateful for a straight answer.

Mrs. Shephard: The straight answer is that I have given the House illustrations of bad achievement in Labour-controlled local authorities, which have been backed up by examples given by my hon. Friends and which, alas, illustrate all too well the prospects for education, training and competitiveness in this country in the unlikely and appalling event of a Labour Government being elected.

Mr. Blunkett: With the right hon. Lady's indulgence, let us pursue this a little further. Is she suggesting that the political complexion of the elected members of an authority is affecting the teaching of children in the classroom, the quality of head teachers or the work of officials in those authorities?

Mrs. Shephard: The record of the authorities I have quoted speaks for itself, and there is no need to go into more detail. It is obvious that, in badly managed, Labour-run authorities, everyone's job is more difficult.
Let us look at what the Government have put in place to raise education standards. As I have said, there is always more to do and higher levels to achieve. Let us

look at what we have already achieved against continuous resistance and hostility from the Labour party. At every step, the Labour party and its comrades in the Labour town halls have fought every measure to raise standards.

Ms Joan Walley: May I refer to the difficulties that the hon. Lady seemed to be presenting to the House in her last comments? If head teachers, councillors and local education officers can monitor what is needed in a particular area, the Secretary of State should be receptive to those needs. In my authority of Staffordshire, there is a clear and urgent need for capital spending on school buildings. Despite extensive building repair and improvements, there are schools in my constituency with classrooms that should not be used. Repeated bids to her Department have not provided the funding we need to bring the classrooms up to an acceptable level. Surely that will affect education standards. Can we abandon this party political approach that the right hon. Lady seems to be adopting, and recognise what is needed in our nation's schools?

Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to abandon the party political approach for one moment by telling the hon. Lady a fact—spending on capital programmes has been increased for this year by 7 per cent., which should help Staffordshire and every other local authority in the land. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady of the party political activity undertaken by her colleagues in the House and elsewhere who have opposed everything that the Government have sought to put in place to improve standards in education.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend has been talking about the measures that the Government have taken to improve education standards. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that excellent scheme is designed to help poorer families, not the better-off, as the hon. Gentleman wrongly alleged in his speech?

Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to confirm that the assisted places scheme is designed specifically to help children from disadvantaged families take advantage of a good education within the independent sector. It extends the choice and diversity that have been the key notes of this Government's education policies.
What have we put in place? We have introduced the national curriculum, the national system of testing and assessment for children at seven, 11 and 14, and more freedom for schools to manage themselves, with local management for LEA schools and over 1,100 grant-maintained schools, which act as beacons of excellence to promote ever higher standards. We have introduced more accountable schools. The national system of rigorous inspection means that, for the first time, all schools will have their strengths and weaknesses made known to parents and to taxpayers. We are providing much more information for parents.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to congratulate the headmaster, staff, governors, parents and children at Ripley St. Thomas school in my constituency, which has recently become a specialist language centre, having


raised vast sums from everybody in the locality? One of these days, would my right hon. Friend pay a visit to the school, because I am sure that she would enjoy it?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure I would, especially if my hon. Friend were the guide. I am delighted to congratulate those responsible for the school, because that example illustrates precisely the greater choice for parents and the greater diversity that we have sought to put in place.
We have introduced grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges, specialist schools and colleges and, of course, assisted places.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why, when she was a member of Norfolk county council's education committee, she voted for the closure of all the remaining grammar schools in the county, including the one that she attended, North Walsham girls high school? Why did she do that, and what has changed her mind since then?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady will find that her chronology is a little wrong. She will find that I may well have been working for the council at that time, but I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Norfolk, because an entirely new choice for parents has been introduced by the Government with the introduction of vouchers for four-year-olds. The hon. Lady has made quite a campaign of trying to rubbish what is going on with nursery vouchers in Norfolk, and I am delighted to tell her the result of some research that we are producing today. It shows that 86 per cent. of Norfolk parents are delighted with the nursery voucher scheme. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be thrilled to hear that.
We have also introduced effective action to improve the least successful schools.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Shephard: No, not at the moment. I must make progress.
We have also introduced effective action to improve teaching. We are establishing 25 literacy and numeracy centres to tackle basic skills teaching in primary schools. We are introducing more stringent teacher training for reading and arithmetic. We are introducing training and an entirely new qualification for head teachers, and, of course, the Teacher Training Agency was set up specifically to improve the quality of teacher training.
What is the record of the Labour party? We have heard a great deal about intentions and about the activity over the past couple of months, but when we legislated in 1979 to save the remaining grammar schools, who voted against it? Labour. When we legislated in 1980 to establish the principle of publishing exam results and to bring in the assisted places scheme, who voted against? Labour did.
When we carried through the Education Reform Act 1988 to establish the national curriculum, national testing and assessment, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the abolition of ILEA, who voted against it? Labour did. When we legislated in 1992 to free further education colleges from local authority control, who voted against? Labour did. That legislation included the establishment of a rigorous system of school inspection, but Labour voted against that, too
When we legislated in 1993 to make it easier for schools to go grant-maintained and to establish the Funding Agency for Schools, who voted against? Labour did. When we legislated in 1994 to reform teacher training and to set up the Teacher Training Agency, who voted against? Labour did.
That is a long record by the Government of achievement in raising standards, and a long and shameful record by Labour of opposition to every measure to raise standards—a record that Labour and Hansard cannot deny. Labour was so busy opposing that it has not even noticed what it voted against over the past 16 years, as the hon. Member for Brightside made clear. It is no good trying, hopelessly, to put it right over two or three months.

Mr. Garrett: The right hon. Lady earlier drew comparisons with Labour local authorities. Will she cast her mind back to the time when she was a leading light in Norfolk county council's education authority? She may even have been the chair of that authority for a time—[Interruption.] Does she recall that, when she played a leading role in Norfolk education, it was probably the worst authority in the country? It was at the bottom for the league for expenditure on books, for expenditure on pupils and for class sizes, for expenditure on buildings. Independent observers held it up as an authority—[Interruption.] Its results were very poor, too—[Interruption.] I keep being interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is a rather long intervention, but it is not helped by sedentary interventions from Conservative Members.

Mr. Garrett: Does the Secretary of State admit any responsibility for that deplorable level of performance, while we are on the subject of comparing councils?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully and usefully provided a perfect example of Labour's usual attitude, which is that resources equal good results.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the subject of Norfolk?

Mrs. Shephard: This must be the last intervention for some time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I had five children at the village school, at which she appointed the school head, at the time that she was a school inspector? All my children received an exceedingly good education.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend.
In the days when Labour Members voted against every measure to put standards in place, at least they were consistent. The puzzling thing now is that some of them oppose one thing, some another. The hon. Member for Brightside, for example, does not like selection in schools. Just a few weeks ago, he said about children:
Creaming them off and putting them in schools that provide excellence—that's the theory—you give excellence to a very small minority and you write off the rest.


Of course, his view is not shared by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) or several other Labour Members, who are very happy for their children to belong to that "very small minority".
The hon. Member for Brightside has many times voiced his opposition to grant-maintained schools. But he goes further than that—he objects to parents choosing any school not in their own local authority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) pointed out. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. The hon. Member for Brightside should really take to task the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), just two of the Labour Members who have made that choice using the powers that Government policies have given them—while, of course, seeking to destroy those policies lest other people's children should gain from them.
Last Friday, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield announced his support for streaming and his opposition to mixed-ability teaching. Yet not only has Labour promoted those educationally harmful mixed-ability classes for many years, but only last December, in a policy paper, it said:
schools have rightly rejected forms of streaming which have labelled some children as failures throughout their schooling.
Do hon. Members remember the hon. Member for Brightside saying, "Watch my lips—no selection"? How curious that the views of the shadow spokesman for education seem so different from those of other hon. Members, not only in his party but on his own Front Bench.
The Labour Party reminds me of that old Tuscan army,
Where those behind cried `Forward'!
And those before cried Back'!"—
and some no doubt went sideways, just like the Labour party which is trying to go in all directions at once—wherever the magnet of an opinion poll leads it. By the way, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Tuscans lost.
This Government have already carried through the most radical programme of change for our schools in living memory, but we have to go further. The Dearing 16-to-19 review heralds a wider and more rigorous range of vocational and academic qualifications. On Thursday, we shall publish the third competitiveness White Paper, setting out plans for education and training policies to equip Britain to face the future.
The skills audit addresses what has been a chronic problem for this country for 120 years. It is this Government who have had the courage to do that; it is this Government who have brought forward the measures to deal with the deficiencies. We shall continue to do so, because it is this Government alone who understand the challenge of global competition.
Later this month, I will publish a White Paper to extend self-government in all schools, to give more freedom to grant-maintained schools, and to give all parents more choice of schools—including grammar schools. In September, I will launch a thoroughgoing reform of teacher training to ensure that new primary teachers are better equipped in future to teach the three Rs. We shall be bringing legislation before the House to support better 

school discipline and to give powers to Ofsted to inspect the work of LEAs in raising educational standards. Those measures are essential if pupils are to learn effectively.
I shall predict Labour's response to that programme to raise standards ever higher. It will fudge, it will oppose—not just us, but each other. Labour Members will doubtless seize eagerly on the advantages of our policies for their own children, while denying those opportunities to the children of others. Some of them may pay lip service to the cause of higher standards—we heard some of that this afternoon— while allowing their local authorities to lower standards at every turn. In other words, they will practise the creed which socialism has used throughout its history—"Do what I say, not what I do." People will see behind the smiling face of new Labour the class envy and mediocrity of old socialism.
This Government will continue their programme to give the people of this country the finest education in the world. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Mike Hall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on a tour de force this afternoon on Labour party policies and the way in which we will try to lever up education standards. His speech was in stark contrast to the bereft performance of the Secretary of State. We heard little of what the Government propose to do about the crisis in our schools that has come about after 17 years of Conservative government. All we heard was an onslaught on the Labour party in local government. I am tempted to ask whether the right hon. Lady will accept responsibility for her Department's activities. Which of her five predecessors does she blame for the problems in our schools today?
What is happening in our schools today is a direct result of the dictations of the 1988 education Act—wrongly titled the Education Reform Act—which was put on the statute book by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). The Government had high expectations of that Act. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman described the legislation in the following way:
This Bill will create a new framework, which will raise standards, extend choice and produce a better-educated Britain.—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 771.]
Yet, according to figures produced on the performance of our education system, problems in schools today show that the expectations of the Act are not being realised. In fact, school standards may have suffered as a direct result of the Act because of the nature of the national curriculum and of standard attainment tests, which were so flawed and so poorly introduced.
The Secretary of State said that the Labour party has opposed all the Government's so-called "reforms", the national curriculum and national testing, but she is wrong. If she reads the Second Reading speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the 1988 Bill, she will know that that he warned that the manner in which the national curriculum and the standard assessment test were being designed would lead to the national curriculum being over-prescribed, making it unable to deliver the goods that the Government intended it to deliver.
The pronouncement of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was prophetic—what he warned of has come to pass. Those two crucial criticisms about the fatally flawed nature of the SATs and over-prescription have been borne out by the investigation of none other than Sir Ron Dearing. He was brought in by the Government to sort out the mess of the national curriculum—a twice-revisited national curriculum, with twice-revisited tests. In 1993, he said:
The National Curriculum is fundamental to raising educational standards. Urgent action is needed to reduce the statutorily required content of its programme of study and to make it less prescriptive and less complex. A closely co-ordinated review of all the statutory curriculum Orders should immediately be put in hand, guided by the need to:

i reduce the volume of material required by law to be taught;
ii simplify and clarify the programmes of study;
iii reduce prescription so as to give more scope for professional judgement;
iv ensure that the Orders are written a way that offers maximum support to the classroom teacher."
On key stages 1, 2, and 3, which are fundamental to our primary education, he said:
The primary purpose of the review at Key Stages 1, 2, and 3 should be to slim down the National Curriculum; to make the Orders less prescriptive; and to free some 20 per cent. of teaching time for use at the discretion of the school.
We would not be in our current position if the Government had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and piloted their national curriculum and standard assessment test. As a direct result of their not listening, since 1988 near chaos has reigned in our schools as teachers have become demoralised and our children's education has suffered.
As Secretaries of State for Education came and went, Sir Ron Dearing was brought in to try to bring some order where chaos reigned. His report, published in December 1993, vindicates the Labour party's advice to the Government during the passage of the 1988 Bill. Had the Government listened, today we might have higher school standards. We might also have saved the £750 million that they wasted on the introduction of the national curriculum, which they had to revise twice to get it right, making it less prescriptive and more directed to the needs of children.
It is not the first time in our educational history that we have seen the so-called "twice-revised codes". We saw them at the beginning of education, when we had payment by results, and now we see it revisited in the redrawing of the national curriculum. I still do not think the Government have it right. Those are the rewards of the 1988 Act, which are there for all to see.
The Prime Minister was quite right. As a direct result of those reforms introduced by the Government, he admitted that
the top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not.
That is a frightening admission of complacency by the Prime Minister about the quality of our state education. It is a condemnation from the very top of Government of the quality of education received by 85 per cent. of our pupils.
It showed absolute complacency for the Secretary of State to go to the Dispatch Box and fail to address those concerns, but spend most of her time trying to bash

Labour-controlled local authorities, which are doing their level best to provide decent education for the children in their area.
The Secretary of State did not attempt to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside about the responsibilities of head teachers and teachers to teach the children in their care. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to draw attention to that failing, but his Government must now act.
Not only have Labour Members drawn attention to the problems in schools today, not only does the Prime Minister admit that there are problems and not only has Sir Ron Dearing tried to straighten out the national curriculum, but the Office for Standards in Education—the Government's organization—has drawn attention to problems in our education system. Ofsted stated:
Far too many children were found, however, not to be making the progress which they should.
That quote is from 1996, after 17 years of Conservative government. It has been 17 years of a Government who have tried to dictate from the centre what is taught in our schools, how it is taught and how teachers are trained. There has been a range of issues, and legislation after legislation, but the Government have not yet produced the improvement in standards that we desire for all our children who are being educated in the state sector. That quote is another condemnation of the Department for Education and Employment, under a Government who have had 17 years in office and who still fail to take responsibility for their actions.
It is absolutely disgraceful that the number of pupils leaving our schools with no passes at GCSE rose from 7 per cent. in 1993 to 7.8 per cent. in 1995. According to a recent parliamentary question tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Brightside, 41,389 pupils left school last year without a single GCSE pass. That is another demonstration of the Government's failure in education. Sir Geoffrey Holland—who, until recently, was the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment—said that 13-year-olds in English schools lag two years behind their continental cohort, and that they never catch up.
The Government have recently published results that demonstrate another important problem. There is a huge achievement gap between the ages of 7 and 11. In English and mathematics, about 20 per cent. of pupils were below level 2 at the age of seven, whereas more than half were below level 4 at the age of 11. That is a very worrying trend in our pupils' achievements.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hall: No, I shall not give way. The Secretary of State did not give way to me, so I am not sure why I should give way to the hon. Gentleman. He can make his own speech in his own time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that he will catch your eye if he behaves himself.
Ofsted has found that, in key stage 2 generally, there has been a slowing in pupil progress, particularly in years 3 and 4, and that that is a worryingly persistent feature of inspections in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside drew attention to the fact that, in the past five years, pupil-teacher ratios have worsened. That is a poor record


of government, and I must ask: who is to blame for this sad state of affairs? We heard from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—he has left the Chamber—in a debate on education last Wednesday. He blamed teachers; he blamed parents; he blamed pupils; he blamed the Labour party. He exonerated the Government—fancy that.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is the Labour party's fault.

Mr. Hall: The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is the Labour party's fault. He must have been asleep for the past 17 years. He sat on the Back Benches in government, taking no responsibility for the problems that they have created in our state education system.
We see that the Government have once again deployed the BSE strategy—blame someone else. After 17 years, it is really time that they held up their hands and said, "We have made mistakes in education. We recognise the failings and are prepared to do something about them." All we get instead are attacks on Labour-controlled local authorities.
One of the interesting things about standards in schools is that teachers, and teaching methods in particular, have been singled out for criticism. Anyone in the teaching profession who has reached the age of 65 may well have entered the profession in 1952 and given 44 years of loyal service. The Conservatives have been in power for 33 of those 44 years; they still blame the Labour party for the teaching methods employed in our schools, whereas teaching methods have been adopted and approved by successive Governments, Labour and Conservative. It is important that that is recognised. Anyone who has entered the teaching profession in the past 17 years has known nothing other than Conservative control and seven Acts of Parliament and the interference that they brought with them.
On a local note, Cheshire county council—my local authority—is controlled by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. It has a very poor record on education in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. It is 97th in a league table of 109. In spending terms, it is 96th out of 109, spending only £1,483 per pupil, which is far below the national average and much below the exemplars for education. A pupil-teacher ratio of 24:1 is far too high.
Mention has been made of the interest in the level of funding for the state education system. The difference between the amount received by Westminster city council for education and that received by Cheshire county council is iniquitous. Both are Tory-controlled, but one receives far more than the other. If my local authority received the same amount as Westminster, it would be able to employ 4,539 extra teachers.
I do not accept that employing those extra teachers would not raise standards at schools in my county, in my constituency and, indeed, at the local comprehensive school attended by my son. I do not accept for one minute the argument that class size does not matter. The idea is straightforward: a good teacher teaching 40 kids will teach 30 kids better. That is plain common sense, and we should be doing something to reduce pupil-teacher ratios.
The Government must consider why teachers leave the profession. The Public Accounts Committee recently considered the number of teachers retiring. Between

1985–86 and 1994–95, 150,000 teachers left the profession and 108,600 left prematurely. They left not because of ill health but through voluntary early retirement. If they could be encouraged to stay in the state system, we should have a huge wealth of resources to help increase standards in all our schools. We need to encourage teachers to stay in the profession.
We know why teachers become shell-shocked. There has been an initiative overload by the Government, who have demanded that teachers do more and more in less and less time. In addition, they have heaped criticism on teachers when they fail to achieve what is demanded of them. We must seriously examine ways to retain teachers in the profession.
I am encouraged by the Labour party's commitment to ensuring that, within five years of taking office, we shall be providing a nursery place for every three and four-year-old whose parents want one. We shall do so because we know that it will represent value added for the rest of those individuals' careers.

Mr. Pawsey: How will Labour do it?

Mr. Hall: I am not taking any sedentary interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pawsey: I tried the other sort.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) must control himself. He seems to be getting into bad habits these days.

Mr. Hall: The crux of the matter is how to raise standards in education. If we can provide a nursery education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it, the benefits throughout the children's careers would be there for all to see. This is an important commitment that the Labour party has made. We have also committed ourselves to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to below 30 in the lifetime of a Labour Government. That is essential to improving standards in the state system.
I am attracted by the idea that the Labour party is committed to a general teaching council. This will ensure professionalism, which will in turn empower teachers and make them feel valued. We can thereby hope to improve the quality of teaching. I am also attracted by my Front-Bench colleagues' ideas, which are not new, of assertive discipline in school, ensuring that we employ the best teaching methods, and instituting criteria-based assessments of how pupils are performing.
The home-school contract is probably one of the most important that we can develop. It engages parents in the education of their children to ensure that we all get the best out of the system. It also increases expectations. I am confident that the Labour party, once in office, will make education its passion and that, through partnership with everyone involved, it will improve the quality of education for all.
Our approach will be based on co-operation, partnership and opportunity, not on diktat from central Government, which ignores the people who are most important to the enterprise—teachers, pupils and parents. We shall bring them all together in a co-operative venture so that our education system will ensure that the economy is well served into the 21st century.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside to the whole of the educational establishment as a good example of what the Labour party will do in office in the not-too-distant future.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the education policy of the Conservative and Labour parties.
It was in Islington—and under Labour—that I saw education break down as I had never seen it break down before. When I arrived in Islington as the head of Highbury Grove school, I was still a member of the Labour party, but what I saw there drove me out as a refugee to the Conservative party. That is perfectly true. Schools in Islington were run as if by the red guards in China. When my chairman of governors asked whether the school could be run as a workers' collective, I fled. This is all public knowledge; I have written about it.
Education in Islington is still, I believe, among the worst in the country. It is a question not of money but of the way in which education services are organised in that particular authority. It is no wonder the leader of the Labour party fled with his son to another borough. I had to say that at the outset, as I am still a schoolmaster at heart, as I know the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is, too.
Interestingly, Highbury Grove was saved by working-class and immigrant parents who wanted their children taught properly, as opposed to the trendies in the Labour party who wanted the school run as a collective. It was the working-class and immigrant parents who kept Highbury Grove, which was then the most over—I have forgotten the word.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Over-subscribed.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Indeed. I am so excited, but I must control myself. Highbury Grove was the most over-subscribed school in London at that time, and it was the working class parents and their children who kept up standards. It certainly taught me a lesson about where I stood politically.
From time to time, we see a movement towards common sense in the Labour party, and we drink to it. If the Opposition paid for it, we would drink to it even more. However, any such movement is very slow.
The first issue that I wish to highlight is the teaching of children in ability groups. There has been a revelation in the Labour party, which has discovered setting. Its members have been to a prayer meeting and decided that setting is the answer. Setting means that each child is tested in every subject and goes into a first, second, third, fourth or fifth group for each separate subject, according to the results of the tests. It is like a progressive barn dance, with pupils meeting from time to time as they move from class to class. Under this system, the whole class has to wait until the last child has arrived, 25 per cent. of teaching time will be wasted and the gates will have to be locked to prevent children leaving between classes.
Anybody who has seen setting in a school, as I have, knows that it does not work. We tried it for one term at Highbury Grove and the staff—including the trendies—

said that they wanted no more of it and that they would sooner teach one class where they knew what they were doing.
We know that children differ in ability. We all differ in ability—academically, in sport and in everything else. We have to accept it as a fact of life. It is nonsense to pretend that all children are the same, and it would be a grey world if they were.
It is the height of cruelty to educate able and less able children together. It makes the able arrogant—they think that they have all the answers—while the poor little boy at the bottom of the class who never gets anything right in class will kick in the windows, and I am on his side because of all the disadvantages that it brings him. Whatever he does, he knows that he cannot succeed.
At last, after the prayer meeting, Labour has decided on setting. However, I would like to see a school that is organised in that way with normal staffing. If there is one, I would be happy to go to see it with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). I do not think that there is one. I do not think that there is a school in discovered space that continues to use that system. It is simply not on.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument that the Opposition are putting before the nation is the same dishonest argument that they used to encourage the launching of comprehensive schools? The Opposition said then—as they are saying now—that every child will have his or her own timetable and work at his own pace in every subject. That is totally impossible to organise in any school, as my right hon. Friend and I know from our long and deep experience. Finally, I remind him that he said that a good school is where the children go in fast and come out slow. Is that not right?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend has remembered the advice that I gave him. I advised parents to stand outside the school gates to see how quickly the children went in the morning and how slowly they came out at the end of the day—or vice versa—and, if the staff came out so fast at 4 o'clock that they knocked the children down, to go home, as nothing could be done with that school. It is the best test of any school—better than all the inspectors.

Mr. Greenway: What about my point about setting?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: My hon. Friend, who also taught in the east end of London and whom I first met on my second day in London—obviously, he has influenced me in relation to the Conservative party—mentioned setting, but I have said enough about that.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: If the hon. Gentleman is offering to show me a school that is totally setted, I shall give way. If not, I shall not. I am waiting for such an offer from anywhere in the world, and I shall accept it.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Between his Waldorf and Stadler act with the hon. Member for Ealing,


North (Mr. Greenway), I would encourage him to think about what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech. He did not say that every class in every school would involve setting. He said that we would work from the presumption of the advisability of setting over mixed-ability teaching, but he entered an important caveat—that it is for the teacher to decide the pedagogical methodology employed in the classroom.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: That means that every school will organise itself and that there will be no interference from socialist authorities such as Islington. Am I right in that? Will schools in Islington be able to organise themselves in exactly the way they want without any interference from the local authority?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We have made it absolutely clear that not only do we support the local management of schools but we seek to reinforce that in a variety of ways. That is published Labour party policy. It is for the school to run itself and not for the local authority to run it as part of a line of management. That is history now.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I feel that policy is being made as we speak and that we are in the centre of the world. However, I shall move on, as I wish to make two more points.
My second point relates to grammar schools. Apparently they will be allowed to remain.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: No. I am godfather to my hon. Friend's son, so I shall restrain my hon. Friend.
There are currently 161 grammar schools and they will be allowed to continue, provided they receive an affirmative vote. Perhaps the rest of the country should be brought in on that. Why cannot the rest of the country be allowed to decide whether to bring back grammar schools? However, it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows how far he is prepared to go on that, but the Opposition spokesmen do not. They are doing their best to answer me, but they are really in the dark, in which case, as they are honest people, I am concerned that they should be worried about it. However, I shall hurry on.
The grant-maintained schools have been most effective. Without any interference from me, all but one of the secondary schools in my constituency are now grant-maintained, including the Catholic one. Parents took that decision against the wishes of the teaching unions, just as, back in Islington, parents wanted to run their schools in their own way. The introduction of grant-maintained schools has been one of the Government's greatest achievements.
My third point is totally non-partisan, as has been all that I have said, because I am speaking the truth. It relates to a teaching method—whole-class teaching. Mixed-ability classes comprising four groups—A to D—is the most inefficient method of all time. School after school currently uses that particular method. If the teacher has four groups, each group will receive tuition for only a

quarter of the lesson. If he has three groups, they will receive tuition for only a third of the time, and if he has two groups, they will each have half a lesson.
The difference between our schools and those in the far east, where children are two years ahead, is that they are all taught together in classes far larger than ours. I do not accept that it is a matter of class size. I have seen classes of 60 or 70 in Japan, Taiwan and throughout the far east that have higher standards and discipline than those here. [Interruption.] I do not want to upset the Labour party. I am helping them towards the truth. In many primary school classes, children between nine and 11 are divided into four groups. The children might as well go home for three quarters of the day. That method will have to be looked at again.
My father was the chairman of a divisional executive in Lancashire and he was also a Labour alderman. He was genuinely Labour. He was a conscientious objector in the first world war and was in Wormwood Scrubs with Mr. Morrison; so I have a good background in these matters and no one can take that away. He said that grammar schools were the ladders of working-class opportunity, and Haslingden grammar school remained a grammar school until he died. He also preserved Bacup and Rawtenstall grammar school, which has 950 pupils—some hon. Members will know it. That school was also saved by my father, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for whom I have the greatest respect, knows. I shall keep my hon. Friend under control, too. Outside that school, there should be two statues—a blue statue for me and a red statue for my father.

Mr. Kilfoyle: rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall not let the hon. Gentleman in again because I am about to sit down. I shall get my own back at the end of the debate.

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm for the benefit of the House that today is an Opposition day debate on education? Do you not find it significant that only one Labour Back Bencher is present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not have thought that the hon. Member needed me to give him that information. This is certainly an Opposition day debate on education.

Mr. Don Foster: It is always difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). I am sure that many hon. Members will vividly remember his recent speech in which, having described his time as a teacher as climbing up the drainpipe, he told us that the most important skill that a teacher must have was to learn to climb the rigging.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Brent, North for being able to elicit a clear statement from the Labour Front-Bench team—that was the point that I was hoping to raise with him on an intervention—that it does not believe that it is appropriate for political parties or the Government to determine how individual schools should organise their classes or how children should be taught. There might be all-party agreement that decisions on how


to arrange organisation in a school are best left to individual teachers, schools and governors. I was a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman clearly supported that view.
The right Member for Brent, North made various comments on, and expressed views about, grouping, and referred, for example, to Taiwan and very large classes. I hope that he accepts that that is not a very good example with which to criticise mixed-ability teaching, because many Pacific rim countries organise their lessons in such a way that the more able children are involved in helping the less able. They provide a very good example of effective mixed-ability teaching. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree, however, that, whatever method is chosen, the most important thing to ensure is that children are actively involved in every lesson, rather than passive, which, sadly, often happens.
About a couple of months ago, I was excited that education had at long last reached the top of the political agenda, but in view of debates in the past two or three weeks, I am increasingly uncertain about whether it is a particularly good thing. I do not object to party-political point scoring from time to time, but recent debates have not moved the general education debate very far. The Government's latest proposal, for the introduction of a grammar school in every town, for example, which the Secretary of State said today she will announce shortly, will not address the concerns of people, teachers, parents, governors, and, perhaps, the entire nation about the education service. Nor will the Opposition Front-Bench team's telling teachers how to teach or schools how to organise themselves move the debate on.
It seems that we are almost in an era of a gimmick a day. Such an approach will not raise achievement in schools or keep failure at bay. It is important to recognise that some of the recent gimmicks have not addressed the underlying problems of shortages of books and equipment, overcrowded classrooms and shoddy buildings.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to stand outside one of the primary schools in my constituency and to talk to many parents as they delivered their children to school. I talked to them about their concerns about the education service and what they considered the most appropriate way forward. They made it absolutely clear that they did not believe that there would be any benefit in returning to a selective education system, and that they wanted more emphasis on literacy and numeracy. Many believed that the introduction of high-quality early years education would be a step in the right direction. Every parent argued for increased resources in education, and the vast majority said that they were quite willing to see a small rise in income tax to pay for it.
When I was reading—many hon. Members in the Chamber will have seen it during the past few days—this week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement, I was interested in the remarks of Dr. Colin Butler, who describes himself as a senior English master at Borden grammar school in Kent. He said:
The largest single handicap on education today is not selection but funding; and a lot of so-called educational problems are really financial problems in disguise.
I certainly agree with that. I was somewhat disappointed by the rather dismissive way in which the Secretary of State suggested that the level of resources made no

difference to the quality of education provision. As somebody said fairly recently—I cannot for the life of me remember who—insufficient resources threaten the provision of education in the state school sector.

Sir David Madel: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about talking to parents outside a primary school in his constituency, resources, and a grammar school in every town, but will he tell us what those parents are saying about grant-maintained schools? Is it Liberal Democrat policy to obstruct and oppose parents' and teachers' wishes for a school to become grant-maintained?

Mr. Foster: I should make it clear, as I have in many previous debates, that my party is absolutely clear about its policy on grant-maintained status—we oppose it. We would bring grant-maintained schools and, indeed, city technology colleges, back into the light-touch strategic planning framework of local education authorities. We have also made it absolutely clear that, while the legislation stands, we would not oppose a school assuming grant-maintained status if parents went through the appropriate procedure of a ballot and a majority were in favour of it. To elaborate further, there are two grant-maintained schools in my constituency, with which I work. I do what I can to assist because I believe that, as a Member of Parliament, I should support the education of all children in my constituency. I hope that that is a clear answer.

Sir David Madel: What does the hon. Gentleman say to the parents of children at those two grant-maintained schools who do not want to return to the local education system? How does he deal with that?

Mr. Foster: I make very clear the policy on which the Liberal Democrats will fight the next general election. The electorate in Bath will have an opportunity to consider that and other issues, and they will decide whether to vote for candidates who make such a proposition, which is perfectly fair and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was reasonable for somebody to obstruct policy between elections, and I said that it was not. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
Given the nature of the education debate, many people have been concerned in recent months about not often hearing good news about what is going on in the education service. It is important to recognise that, as a result of very many hard-working and dedicated teachers, and the support of their governors and parents, some excellent work is going on. I should like in particular to congratulate Eileen Whiting and all her staff at Twirton-on-Avon county infants school in my constituency on the absolutely excellent Ofsted inspection report that the school has just received. Despite the many good examples, there are real concerns about the education service after 17 years of Conservative government and innumerable pieces of education legislation.
Some of the concerns were mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). In summary, he said that there are concerns about inadequate levels of achievement in literacy and numeracy; about the staying-on rate post-16, which appears to have stalled;


about the inadequate levels of skills training for the employed and the unemployed; and about the growing number of pupils who are being excluded from our schools.
There is particular concern about the low morale of people who are working in the education service—teachers, lecturers, head teachers and others. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) referred to the increasing number who are leaving the profession, very often as a result of stress-related illness. He will be aware that there is even a problem in recruiting head teachers to inner-city schools, and a potential problem of recruiting teachers in a number of subject areas, particularly science and mathematics

Mr. Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of teachers leaving the profession—more than 150,000 in the past 10 years—represents a haemorrhage of experience that we would have done well to staunch? Teachers with a greater length of service will clearly be the best, and will get the best out of pupils. We must address the issue of keeping quality within the state system.

Mr. Foster: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who made the same point adequately during his speech. The other point he made in his interesting speech, which would go a long way to prevent the haemorrhage, concerned a return to more partnership and co-operation in the education service, rather than the market forces, dog-eat-dog approach introduced by the Government.
The problems will not be overcome by increased selection. Many of the parents I met yesterday remember the old selective education system and the 11-plus. In the old system, those lucky enough to pass went to a grammar school, while those who failed ended up in a secondary modern school. The right hon. Member for Brent, North talked about grammar schools providing a ladder of opportunity; he did not remind us that those who went to secondary modern schools did not get that opportunity and did not get a second chance—which can be provided by a more comprehensive education system.
Parents cannot understand where the Government are going. One minute they tell us that parents will have the right to choose their child's school; now we are told that the White Paper will propose that schools will increasingly choose their pupils. Selection will not raise levels of achievement; it will mean a return to quality education for the few and inferior education for the many. There will be a return to choice for a few, but no choice for the majority.

Mr. Robin Squire: That is absolute rubbish.

Mr. Foster: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why he thinks that it is rubbish.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute tripe. His suggestion that the creation of a grammar school, as one of 12 schools in an area, will at a stroke demolish the education provided in the other 11 is balderdash.

Mr. Foster: The Minister will, perhaps, recall the days when there was widespread use of selective education.
Why did secondary modern schools—through no fault of the teachers—provide an inferior education? They did not provide a second chance for those who failed the 11-plus examination. Those points cannot be denied, and they show why a return to selection will not, by itself, raise levels of achievement.
We must surely recognise that children are different, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North so eloquently put it. They have different levels of aptitude and ability, and they have different aspirations. We must provide an education system that meets all those different needs and aspirations for every young person. The vast majority of parents have no choice whatsoever about the school to which they send their children, so we must ensure that choice lies within every individual school, and not between schools. In that way, we can ensure that every individual reaches his or her potential.
It is a great pity that the Secretary of State, who I believe agrees with that aim, has been forced to capitulate to the Prime Minister, and now seems to be following him down a well-trodden dead end. It is also a pity that she has been forced to continue to promote that other pet project of the Prime Minister—grant-maintained schools—which is a failed policy initiative if ever there was one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members may recall—[Interruption.] I am sorry—they are not in opposition yet, although they will be shortly. Conservative Members may remember the Secretary of State's predecessor telling the House that he would eat his hat with a garnish if the majority of secondary schools were not grant-maintained by the next election. I hope that the current Secretary of State has not agreed to take that on.
Where, in all the Government's gimmicks, is the visionary thinking about the future? Do they not realise that the world has moved on? Information is widely available, and we need to develop an education system that helps young people to gather information and use it wisely. We must develop an education system that starts to think of teachers not as the providers of information and knowledge to young people, but as people who help to develop and promote the learning process. We must ensure that young people are given more opportunity and are required to take more responsibility for their own learning.

Mr. Harry Greenway: With all respect, the hon. Gentleman is producing a lot of hot air. I should like to know, as would the country, the Liberal Democrats' position on mixed-ability teaching. Is he aware that, at last, the Labour party is talking about raising standards and says that it will consider ending mixed-ability teaching? Is it not amazing that Labour has reached the first rung on the ladder of raising standards?

Mr. Foster: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 10 minutes, but I have had an interesting debate with the right hon. Member for Brent, North about the importance of politicians not dictating to teachers how they should organise their classrooms. In certain circumstances and with appropriate resources, it is possible to do some exciting work and help all children in a mixed-ability class, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The problem is that we often polarise the debate and talk about one teaching method as opposed to another


when we should be making available a range of teaching methods so that children have opportunities to learn in a variety of ways.

Mr. Greenway: indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Having been critical of the Government, I must add that I do not believe that Labour's attempts to steal the Government's clothes are helpful either. Opposition Front Bench Members will soon be telling teachers what colour chalk to use. I was interested to read a comment from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. Christopher Price, in the education supplement to today's Guardian. He said:
Labour at the moment is committed to "do" very little; most of its policy statements consist of tactical manoeuvres to outflank the Conservative Right on school discipline and avoid any spending commitments before the coming election.
How right Mr. Price is.
Instead of telling teachers how to teach and schools how to organise, Government and Opposition would do well to commit themselves to increase investment in the education service to reverse some of the recent damaging cuts. In so doing, I hope that they will, like me, recognise that, while extra money will not by itself raise achievement, it is an essential starting point. What is the point of streaming pupils—if that is what people want—if there are not enough habitable classrooms? What is the point of advocating a return to traditional whole-class teaching methods if pupils still have to share books and to work in overcrowded rooms?
Expanded nursery education, ensuring that schools have books, equipment and decent buildings and making sure that our teachers have the opportunity for high-quality, in-service training courses cannot be achieved without increased resources—or by a string of gimmicks that look back to a failed selective system. If the House passed legislation providing that there should be a no new education gimmick day, we would spend the day examining gimmicks from earlier days and finding that they do not provide the means for raising achievement that the country desperately needs.
As I said earlier, I have not been impressed with the level of the education debate in recent weeks. If we are to do what all parties say they want to do—to raise achievement in our schools, which is desperately needed—one problem that parties must address is resources in schools. Only my party has been prepared honestly and openly to make a commitment to increase resources and to be clear about where the money will come from. The electorate want to hear that sort of honesty from all political parties, but, sadly, it has been lacking in the recent debate.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I do not think that even my severest critic would describe me as a rabid right winger. Opposition Members have often prayed in aid some of my criticisms of Government policies in recent years. I remain committed to education. I abhor extremism, whether of the right or the left. The politicisation of the education debate has much to answer for in respect of many of the problems that we face.
I would be less than true to what I believe if I did not say how appalled I was by the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). That is not because I disagree with what he said he wanted to achieve in education, such as an improvement in standards, better quality across the board and a variety of teaching methods. A remarkable consensus exists in the education world for those things, which we all want in our schools for the benefit of our children.
In a recent article, I said that one of the most significant benefits gained by the Government has been by dragging the Opposition on to our ground in espousing so many of the things in education for which we fought for so long. However, to turn round and blame all the ills of education on the past 17 years is not just to rewrite history but to ignore it. The seeds of many of the problems that we are trying to tackle today were sown many years ago. I shall mention one or two.
It was in the 1960s that changes were made to the requirements and qualifications for entry into the teaching profession. It was in the mid-1960s that O-level mathematics was dropped as a prerequisite for entry to teacher training. That happened between 1965 and 1970, only 30 years ago. A teacher who entered teacher training at that time was probably 18 or 19. A simple sum shows that they are still in schools and still without O-level mathematics. I instance that because maths has been much mentioned not only in this debate but outside the House.
The ease with mathematics that many of us had taught to us has gone. It is small wonder that many teachers have said since that they feel ill at ease with the subject or that their lack of ease has been passed on to so many pupils. It was not until the early 1980s that that requirement was reinstated. One must be careful before picking points in history to illustrate and bolster specious arguments.
To talk about rationing excellence is ridiculous. It was when the evolution that followed the 1944 Education Act, which worked through the system in the next two decades, was abandoned in favour of an egalitarian revolution that the problems started to arise. It was not a question of rationing excellence but of abandoning it. Abraham Lincoln once said that we cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Never was that more true than with education. If we deprive children who can benefit from it of the opportunity for excellence in the name of egalitarian nonsense, we shall not achieve the perhaps laudable aims that we set out to obtain. Common sense dictates that that will not be the case.
We talk about pendulums swinging. My wife is an able and distinguished primary school head teacher.

Mr. Robin Squire: indicated assent.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement.
My wife tells me how much she hates pendulums and that she prefers balances. Trying to get a little movement either way from the centre achieves far more than the vicious swing of the pendulum that throws out so much of the good in the name of change. In education, we must surely look at what is good and build on it. We must look at the best and use it as an example. We must consider what needs to be changed and seek the most effective way of changing it.
In all that, we must seek the co-operation of those who work in education. Most importantly, we must recognise that education policy is delivered not by politicians but by teachers. Improving the quality of teachers and their training and giving them the resources that they need is critical to the whole debate.
On resources, we have heard what the £1 billion windfall is to achieve. I was staggered by the list of commitments that it would finance. I will give the House a simple example of the cost of improvements. Recently I was invited to speak at the launch of "Making Sense of Science", which involved improving the opportunities for science co-ordinators to acquire extra skills to take back into their schools. That is fine, but in a school with 10 classes and only 10 teachers there are no opportunities for staff release time. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do their jobs.
Let us imagine that, by way of a single improvement, we want to offer every primary school in the country increased resources of 0.2 per cent. for its staffing costs. That represents two teaching periods a week. Let us further assume that we pay for that solely from the supply budget, so that no permanent or even temporary contract is entered into. That will cost about £92.5 million.
Doing the sum is easy: it costs about £120 a day for a supply teacher. There are 39 teaching weeks in a year, and 19,500 primary schools in the country. That shows the danger of making wonderful promises about increased resources. Of course I would like improvements of this kind; I have recommended them in the past both on my own behalf and via the Select Committee. The difference is that we recognise the need to be realistic. It is the cruellest of deceptions to pretend that £1 billion will do more than scratch the surface of the problem.
Of course we want more money for education; of course we want it targeted on achieving better standards. But unless we are realistic about the costs we shall be perpetrating a cruel deception on those who believe that the promises can be delivered.

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) mentioned the windfall tax in the context of initiatives for the training of young people. The Labour party has consistently said, on public platforms and in policy documents, that we will provide extra resources for education, as for other areas, as and when the economy allows.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I accept that that is what has been said, but it was not said today and it is not said very often. It is one of those convenient omissions that many people make when trying to justify a case. The House should be concerned about promises of increased expenditure, because it will take a massive amount of money to bring about even the minimal improvement that I have mentioned.
A great deal of this debate is about standards and whether they are as high today as they used to be. In this context, I offer the House a brief quotation:
Many who are in a position to criticise the capacity of young people who have passed through the Public Elementary Schools have experienced some uneasiness about the condition of Arithmetical knowledge and teaching at the present time. It has been

said, for instance, that the accuracy in the manipulation of figures does not reach the same standard which was reached 20 years ago. Some employers express surprise and concern at the inability of young persons to perform simple operations involved in business.
That is an extract from "The teaching of arithmetic in elementary schools", HMSO 1925. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The golden age of education exists largely in people's minds.
Today a revolution is under way in many of our classrooms. Some standards have undeniably fallen. Standards of numeracy and literacy are not as good as I should like them to be; there is empirical evidence to show that they have declined. But the wonderful breadth of knowledge, particularly evident in primary schools today, makes what I learned in primary school look very small beer indeed. We have brilliant teachers teaching mixed ability classes at varying speeds of learning. Brilliant teaching requires excellent preparation, delivery skills, and understanding of the differing needs of children—especially in the primary schools, which have come in for so much criticism.
Let us look for the places where quality exists and then build on that quality. Let us set up the best as an exemplar for the rest. Let us cease the continual carping—the belief that the wheel can be rediscovered, or that everything was perfect 30 years ago, and that everything today is imperfect. The truth, as ever, lies somewhere between the two views. We must build on the good and seek to change the bad.
In these debates we hear of the importance of getting it right for our children and giving them the necessary opportunities. On that there is a remarkable consensus. The 1944 Act arose not out of political dissent but from political consent. If education is indeed so important, we must surely all recognise that trading meaningless statistics across the Chamber and exchanging meaningless insults in newspapers and other education articles does not achieve the one thing that we all want: raising standards so as to give our children the best possible opportunities. If we could stop politicising the debate in this way, I would follow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State down her poetical road and say:
And even the ranks of Tuscany
Could scarce forbear to cheer.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: In the search for higher standards in education, it seems to me that we would do well to be fully aware of what, apart from the Government, we are up against. We live in a culture where to call someone clever is an insult, where to describe someone as an intellectual is to heap on him or her at least suspicion and probably a great deal of scorn. Those are the attitudes that have fed down over decades to our school children. Secondary school teachers fight an unending struggle against classroom cultures in which anyone who works hard is stigmatised as a swot. Even in higher education, many students actively disguise the fact that they are working hard and seeking to achieve, for fear of losing kudos with their peers.
I am continually dismayed by the number of students I meet who do not like what they are studying, even though they are perfectly intellectually competent to get through. Part of our task, therefore, is to assert that cleverness, skill and achievement in formal education are as much to be celebrated and emulated as the same qualities in a footballer, runner or singer. That is no small task.
We also have to face up to the huge psychological and cultural influence exercised over our children by the electronic media, which have wildly accelerated over the past 25 years the availability—perhaps the necessity—of electronic devices which offer instant problem solving, not just in mathematics, or which dominate via the screen large chunks of our working and leisure time. As a force acting on the consciousness and the sub-consciousness of our children, this phenomenon weighs heavily against much of what those who set out to tackle academic standards are seeking to achieve.
Our traditional education methods, whether progressive or reactionary, are fundamentally linear. They are based on systematic logical thought, or on the endless reiterative process of pursuing information from left to right and from top to bottom. The pencil and paper tests thrown at the education world in recent years are part of that process. At the same time, there is a hugely predominant influence on children's perception of instant visual—sometimes aural, often automatic—processes involving little interaction, analysis or self-criticism. So the methods by which we monitor standards and desperately hope to improve them—until recently, little but testing has been used in this context—may for the first time be fundamentally out of synch with the dominating cultural forces in society.
I am by no means saying that we should be trying to turn back the clocks, but I recall, for example, worrying about teaching English in higher education where students were producing their written work on computers or word processors with spell checks while we were testing them in examinations that were in manuscript.
The problem of raising standards across the education field is a massively complex cultural problem, while the proposed means of achieving it are simple—and often simple-minded. We have thrust on schools a predetermined curriculum that is controlled from the centre, assessed by crude systems outside the control of the teachers, monitored by a dubious inspection system, and progressively used to fuel crude league-table systems that are badly distorting the functioning of schools and standards.
At the same time, we—I do not just mean the Government—are insisting day after day that schools and teachers are malfunctioning. We expect them to jump from initiative to initiative, we pile on them an intolerable burden of Whitehall-inspired bureaucracy, we tell them that everything they have done for the past 20 years has been at best useless and at worst perverse, and we remove from them much of the responsibility for assessing the pupils they meet every working day.
There is nothing wrong with asserting the value of whole-class teaching; there is nothing wrong with asserting the value of setting up comprehensive schools; there is nothing wrong in asserting the value of phonics in the teaching of reading. What is wrong is the Gadarene lurch towards the centralised determination of such teaching styles and the lack of quantification of when and where different styles are used well, badly or in fruitful combinations with one another. There is the assumption that schools, groups of schools and partnerships—by which I mean partnerships that deliver teacher education—should not be encouraged to seek the matrix of solutions that are best for them. There is the assumption that schools can bear incessant burdens of bureaucracy without consequence for classroom teaching.
We look to other countries for comparison and for example. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) said, we should not be in the business of reinventing the wheel. Successful practice elsewhere must be attended to. However, just as we should beware of over-simple blanket solutions in teaching methods across all schools in England and Wales, we should beware of adopting wholesale the solutions that may be highly effective in different cultures. The same over-simplification exists in the Conservatives' relentless pursuit of the elixir of selection. It is derived from a hazy nostalgia for the good old days and from the simple certainty that selection will benefit the brightest children and improve their standards.
At least two of my hon. Friends have referred to the Prime Minister's lament about the top 15 per cent. and the other 85 per cent. We have to remember the simple truth: it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Selection at 11 will no doubt create excellent grammar schools, but it will also create many more secondary moderns that will have enormous difficulties in achieving the sort of excellence that is required.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Newtonian law that operates in this market of education drives up standards for the few, but drives down standards for the many?

Mr. Pickthall: That is bound to be the case in terms of simple comparison, yes.
I wish to deal briefly with the problems that we need to address in the raising of standards. I maintain that we have a serious educational and cultural problem in the fact that we have particularly failed thousands and thousands of teenage males. The gender gap is widening. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) referred to failure at the GCSE level. The figures show a huge disparity in achievement between teenage boys and teenage girls, with the girls doing a great deal better.
Alistair Smith, a consultant in accelerated learning, has done some research which shows that 16-year-old boys have an average vocabulary of 8,500 words and that 16-year-old girls have an average vocabulary of 11,500 words. To put that into context, The Sun caters for people with a vocabulary of 2,000 words, the Daily Mirror caters for people with a vocabulary of 10,000 words and the quality papers cater for people with a vocabulary of 20,000-plus words. If those figures are accurate, they show that the average 16-year-old boy could not cope with the Daily Mirror—if, indeed, he tried to read at all.
Vast numbers of young men, particularly young white males—this has all sorts of political and social dangers that I do not have time to go into—are grossly under-achieving. I believe that this is partly because of the cultural barbarism to which I referred earlier. Their disaffection is making the raising of standards in secondary schools immensely difficult. Many girls will openly tell us that they resent the systematic disruption of their classroom experience by boys—sometimes over many years. The social consequences of this are horrendous. We need to analyse the roots of it, and a whole variety of measures to challenge it are needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was right to emphasise the crucial problem of the gender gap in teenage education. He was also right


to stress the problem of growing class sizes, particularly in primary schools. The Government reiterate that class sizes make no essential difference—an argument that conveniently fits their financial priorities—but anyone who has taught classes of 34-plus knows exactly how much more difficult it is to monitor and to improve standards.
I shall briefly touch on the argument about poor teachers. Mr. Woodhead has done us a service in headlining the number of teachers he assesses as poor. The percentage of the work force in teaching thus castigated is reassuringly small. It would make an interesting comparison if Mr. Woodhead were to assess Members of Parliament—I should be astonished if only 4 per cent. of them were classified as poor at their jobs. Nevertheless, an uncommitted, worn-out or incompetent teacher can do immense damage. There would be few laments in schools if the obviously unsuited teachers were eased out as quickly as possible—better still would be systems to prevent their entering the profession in the first place.
One enormous worry has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South: the sheer volume of experienced teachers leaving our schools and colleges early who still have a potential 10 years or more to contribute. A similar problem arises with stress-related absences, which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned. This is an aspect to which we need to pay particular attention. If we lose large numbers of experienced teachers through burn-out, we lose their knowledge and the schools lose the stability that such teachers bring. I believe that there is a strong case for carefully targeted sabbaticals to allow experienced teachers a breather and to keep many of them in the profession.
Teacher education has a key role. If we allow even a small number of new teachers who are not good enough into classrooms, we create a situation that is even worse than allowing problems to arise for perfectly good and experienced teachers. Most obviously, we must change the funding mechanisms for higher education institutions so that they are not heavily penalised if a student leaves the course. It is absurd to squeeze individuals through courses when they do not want to teach but merely want paid employment.
To attract the right people into the teaching profession, we have to raise the morale of the existing work force and to make teaching satisfying and attractive. To an extent, of course, this depends on pay and conditions, but that is not the main factor. It is understandable that many of the best potential teachers will look elsewhere for a career when confronted by a situation in which teachers—and those who educate teachers—are regarded by the Government as being of low esteem and responsible for the whole spectrum of social problems faced by our community, and when the impression is given that there is a drive to trawl the profession for inadequate teachers to sack. Who would go into the profession in those circumstances?
Correcting that drop in morale and potential deterioration in the profession of teaching is largely a matter of consistent support, of meaningful in-service

education and self-education, of professional development and of personal problem-solving. We have to ensure that that goes into the process of future training.
Finally, what depresses me most about debates on education in the House is the readiness of many hon. Members to prescribe central nostrums for schools and standards: nostrums based on prejudice, anecdote, dogma or worse. In debates about disclosure of outside earnings, it is interesting to note how many Conservative Members assert the need for outside experience in order to be well informed as Members of Parliament, yet they mention no such requirement regarding their readiness to impose structures, styles, teaching methods or syllabus content in our schools.
Perhaps the Industry and Parliament Trust should conduct a programme for all Front Bench education spokespersons. They could spend several weeks each year in the classroom to gain practical experience which could inform their decision-making. Recent and relevant experience might produce a more spectacular improvement in standards in our schools than reliance on the dogma and slogans of 20 or 30 years ago, as the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out.

6 20pm

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to grammar schools and to secondary moderns. He drew the conclusion that, because of the inequality of existing resources, grammar schools should be abolished. With the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that he has got it wrong. Grammar schools should be retained and the others—whatever they are called—should be better resourced. That is the solution.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss standards in education, but I am surprised that the motion was moved by the Opposition. The House should recall that hon. Members on both the Liberal and the Labour Benches have consistently opposed the Government's efforts to improve the quality and the standard of state education. For example, Opposition Members argued against the national curriculum and testing, grant-maintained schools, the introduction of the Office of Standards in Education, league tables, greater parental involvement, and the introduction of vouchers for nursery education. Opposition Members have consistently opposed the measures that the Government have introduced to improve the nation's education system.
I appreciate that an approaching general election concentrates minds—especially the minds of those who have been in opposition for 17 years. Labour Members are clearly anxious to exchange the sackcloth and ashes of Opposition for the Red Boxes and the ministerial Rovers. They want to get their hands on the levers of power. Therefore, they are prepared to say anything and to ditch any principle in order to ensure that they get a majority at the next general election, whenever it is called.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) told head teachers at their conference that they could not duck their responsibility for the
crisis in children's literacy and numeracy".
That is the first time that I can remember a Labour education spokesman attacking the sacred Plowden report. He said that, in the name of "child-centred" education, whole-class instruction has been abandoned in favour of some form of child self-discovery.
I do not have the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman will discover next the need for discipline in the classroom. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—who is a former education spokesman—has already made that startling and original discovery, and he talks about introducing a curfew for children.
Perhaps the next thing on Labour's education shopping list—after streaming—will be the introduction of a form of grammar school. Of course, Labour Members will not call it a "grammar school", but it will provide good, sound selective education. Perhaps it will be known as a British local academic institution reformed—a BLAIR for short, but not for long, if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has his way. He would set up Prescotts, which would be old-style comprehensives in the socialist republics in south Yorkshire and inner London.
No doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—I am sorry that she is not in her place—would espouse Estelles, which would be schools for the daughters of distressed members of the National Union of Teachers. I say that because the NUT will certainly be distressed by new Labour's wholesale adoption of the Conservative agenda for quality in education.
The fact is that, one by one, the education shibboleths are being abandoned. The benchmarks that have guided Labour's education thinking for so long are being jettisoned like so many outdated textbooks. I welcome the Government's efforts to improve teaching in schools. I am pleased that we had the courage to dismantle Her Majesty's inspectorate and to put Ofsted in its place. Ofsted and Chris Woodhead are now revealing the problems and the shortcomings in primary education, for example.
Ofsted revealed the problems in London schools. Its inquiry into the teaching of reading in primary schools in the Labour-controlled London boroughs of Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets raised serious doubts about standards in primary schools. Ofsted made it clear that a lack of resources was not the problem. Its report entitled "The Teaching of Reading in 45 London Primary Schools", which was published on 7 May this year, said that under-achievement in reading is a threat to pupils' education. That is hardly surprising when one remembers that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, nine out of 10 of the worst-performing local authorities are Labour controlled.
The Secretary of State has announced that she intends to publish primary school performance tables. I deeply regret the fact that that is opposed by some misguided trade unions, to the extent that they are seeking to persuade school governing bodies to act illegally and not make their school results available to the Department for publication. I deplore that action, and I hope that second thoughts will prevail. Standards may be raised by ensuring that parents are able to exercise reasoned judgment when deciding between schools. That laudable objective is already meeting with success in the secondary sector: parents like it, and they want it.
I am intrigued that Opposition Members are consistent only in their inconsistency—what they oppose today will be tomorrow's soundbite and next year's policy statement. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State's speech was in some ways characteristic of the Government's position. However, it was uncharacteristically flat, in view of the fact that she is believed to be at war with the chairman of her party. I shall return to that point later.
The Secretary of State highlighted structure, which tells us a lot about the Government's attitude: they remain obsessed with structure when everyone else is talking about standards in education. The Secretary of State trotted out all the old shibboleths. She attacked local education authorities, but did not mention funding cuts and the deliberate confusion of setting with streaming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) raised an important issue in referring to Government waste. He highlighted the botched attempt to introduce a national curriculum at a cost of £750 million or £760 million. I was quite taken with the comments of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) about his father. I do not doubt that he was a marvellous man, but I recall the right hon. Gentleman telling me that his father burned the results of his trial for Blackburn Rovers. There is a lesson to be learnt from that, and I would not believe everything he told me.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is also a supporter of Blackburn Rovers. My father burned the results because that year the team was knocked out of the cup at an early stage.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Touché.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke enough sense to warrant his description by Labour Members as a de facto Labour supporter in matters educational. He referred again to a penny on income tax, but he and his party have never explained how they would put that penny towards education and local authorities.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who chairs the Select Committee, has just resumed his seat. I welcomed his urging of caution—things do tend to ebb and flow in education, as in all contexts—but there was an element of looking backward in his references to the 1960s and 1970s. It is time that hon. Members from all parties put that time behind them, and began to prepare for the 21st century.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I apologise for missing the first few sentences of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that the problem with education legislation and change is that, if such measures are poorly considered or poorly implemented, they behave like a time bomb, ticking away and then exploding in future generations? It is important to consider where developments began, before making too many judgments about where we are today.

Mr. Kilfoyle: That is why the hon. Gentleman will probably agree with the well-considered proposals of the Labour party, and approve of our recognition that the whole nature of education is changing. It is becoming learning-centred, as opposed to teaching-centred.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) admirably flagged up the gender gap—the alarming difference between the educational performances of young men and young women.
Last but not least, let me refer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He obviously did not read or hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had to say about discipline, truancy and pupil referral units some weeks ago, when he once again set the pace for the Government to follow. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman said that we would come up with another name for good schools. We already have a name for them: comprehensive schools.
I pay tribute to all the teachers, parents, governors and members of local education authorities who ensure that the best interests of our children are pursued in schools throughout the country. Despite the Government's backward-looking obsession with structure—flagged up again by the Secretary of State—those people have fought against the odds to raise standards for all our children in all our schools. Raising standards is recognised on all sides as vital to economic prosperity and social cohesion, as the motion suggests.
If we are to match our global competitors—whether in Europe, in North America or on the Pacific rim—it is essential for our educational standards to be comparable to theirs. If we are to have a nation at ease with itself, where opportunity for self-improvement is available to all, an inclusive education system, offering excellence to everyone, is a sine qua non.
Sadly, the reality is rather different. After 17 years in government, and despite numerous legislative changes, the Conservative party is still failing large sections of our population in the quality of the education that is delivered, imperilling those twin objectives of economic prosperity and social cohesion. We have a Secretary of State who is at war with the Prime Minister's own policy unit. The chairman of the Conservative party wants her political head on a plate. She is supported on her right—literally— by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), an Under-Secretary of State who is renowned for being sopping wet in Conservative party terms. In all fairness to him, he is joining the battle with the party's ideologues.
What is happening to the hawkish Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)? He seems to have been effectively "disappeared"—no, wonder of wonders, he has appeared. He is not often seen anywhere nowadays; he tends to be replaced by the ubiquitous but seemingly educationally and politically nondescript Lord Henley. Another Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has failed to make any impact, while his colleague, the other Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is not present—is so ignorant of her brief that until yesterday, when she was disabused on a radio programme, she thought that parents decided by ballot on selective status in schools. Is it any wonder that the public are heartily sick and tired of a failed Government and failing education policies?
We offered a cross-party consensus on nursery education, for example, to enable every three and four-year-old whose parents wanted it to have quality nursery education. That was rejected out of hand. Instead, we have what the Treasury describes as a "deadweight cost"—a handout to those who can already well afford private provision. No doubt they have been given it for

electoral as much as educational purposes. It will not provide any places in what the Pre-School Learning Alliance has described as the 200 black holes around the country where there is no nursery provision. Good authorities, such as Conservative-controlled Solihull, have made their views well known.

Ms Estelle Morris: It is now Labour-controlled.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Even when it was Conservative-controlled, it made clear its views about the impact of the legislation.
The Government are so confident about their ideological prejudice that pilot schemes for nursery education were transmuted into phase 1. There will be no meaningful evaluation of the lessons of that phase before the scheme goes national. Cuts in local education authorities imperil areas where provision is good—hence my reference to Solihull. Wherever there is an outstanding service for three and four-year-olds, people feel endangered, and nothing that the Government say will change that. While the Government make their case—as they did regularly Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill recently—people are aware that £20 million will be spent on administration, and that the Government are failing to cater for those most in need.
The quality on offer is highly debatable. The Government are not even sure how many nursery "settings" there will be. We have had that debate before. Will there be 27,000, or 40,000, as the Audit Commission says? The Government are offering unqualified people the opportunity to become inspectors on the basis of three days' training. They have failed to ensure the provision of an adequate number of trained and qualified nursery teachers. At the same time, they have abolished the minimum classroom size and recreation space.
All that affects the quality and standards of nursery education, yet everyone recognises the increasing importance of nursery education—not just in terms of educational fulfilment, but in the longer-term context of, for instance, offending behaviour, unwanted pregnancies and stable job records. The research during the Ypsilanti project shows how successful nursery education is in assisting in that regard.
In its final report of 16 June 1995, the National Commission on Education commented on the issue of larger class sizes, which constantly exercises hon. Members. It stated:
It was also certain that the larger classes would mean poorer education for children: the assertion that class sizes do not matter is disingenuous and is contradicted not only by commonsense but by most of the quite extensive research evidence that exists.
But, time after time, Ministers tell us that size bears no relation to pupil attainment.
The Government's own preferred authoritative adviser, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, noted in his annual report that there were serious resourcing problems in our schools, leading to fewer teachers and larger classes. That in turn led him to comment:
There is a need for considerable improvement in provision of books in half of special, a quarter of our secondary, and one in seven primary schools.


He went on to remark that there were serious deficiencies in equipment, and that one in five of our secondary schools and one in seven of our primary schools suffered from accommodation shortfalls.
He then drew the remarkable conclusion:
Teachers who lack proper resources and who work in poor buildings experience problems which at best frustrate and at worst defeat their best efforts to do a decent job.
Yes, indeed. Repeated cuts in local education authority budgets, combined with capping and the Government's failure to deal with changing enrolment patterns, have caused tremendous difficulties to many of our schools. Primary schools have suffered particularly, as the introduction of the national curriculum, changing primary generalists into semi-specialist teachers, has increased the pressures on such schools—as even the chief inspector noted.
While primary schools have struggled generally, those in disadvantaged areas have suffered most, as Mr. Woodhead pointed out. Their problems were compounded by the way in which, under the current Government, section 11 funding was subsumed into the single regeneration budget, and by the removal of Government funds for the reading recovery programme.
Furthermore, while nobody questions the code of practice for special educational needs, there has been a failure to ensure that special educational needs co-ordinators have had the training appropriate to their new-found status. Even now, more than half of special needs co-ordinators do not have appropriate qualifications; nor has the Teacher Training Agency yet ensured that initial teacher training for new teachers guarantees that all newly qualified teachers have an appropriate grounding in special needs to qualify them for their roles in implementing the code of practice. That is in spite of the fact that 20 per cent. of our children have special educational needs.
The end product of all the disjointed Government prevarication and their twisted view of maintained education—a sector that many Conservative Members do not use—is a catalogue of problems that manifest themselves in our secondary schools and beyond. We know that there is a huge disparity between the best and the worst of our schools, and an ever widening gap in pupil achievement. Even the usually pro-Government Mr. Woodhead has noted:
The performance of schools serving disadvantaged areas continues to cause serious concerns.
I am sure it causes serious concerns to parents in those areas.
The reasons for the difference in performance are obvious. The Government are committed to advantaging the few at the expense of the many, and are oblivious to the damage being done to hopes for economic prosperity and social cohesion by their wilful neglect of so many of our schools.
The Prime Minister's answer is to have a grammar school in every town. That means, by definition, that many secondary moderns will appear in every area. Such a preoccupation with outdated structures ignores the fact that, as a nation, we need raised standards for all children if we are to be a high-tech, high-skill and high-wage economy.
The Conservative party is in thrall to league tables. The Opposition do not have a problem with giving meaningful information to parents. We have a problem with a system

of tables that does not take into account what is actually imparted by the schools to the children. The tables compare unlike phenomena in different schools. It would be nonsense to say that the best of the grammar schools, which are so favoured by the Conservative party, can be compared to inner-city comprehensives, with all the socio-economic problems they have to contend with.
As I travel the country, I am struck by the increasing problems in schools. I was amazed when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that he was unaware of the problems of truancy and exclusion, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside. The hon. Member must have been on a long holiday, and he was probably truanting. The number of exclusions has soared to more than 12,000, while research shows that 800,000 pupils truant regularly, some 80,000 on a quasi-permanent basis.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): What about Islington?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister mentions Islington. Is it any wonder that Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, credited the truanting and the excluded with most of London's street crime? The Minister should realise that his party has been in government for the past 17 years while those figures have taken off.
The Prime Minister insists that privilege for the few is preferable to excellence for all. That is the Tory way forward. I know that the Secretary of State does not agree with the Prime Minister in her heart of hearts. Her experience and common sense are being neutered by the No. 10 policy unit. She knows that education is a great co-operative exercise. As the National Commission for Education has said:
Competition plays a useful part when its effect is to improve learning for pupils. There is little to be said for stimulating competition which is unfair or enables some schools to flourish only by making it more difficult for others.
Those between the ages of 16 and 25 are the product of 17 long years of Tory educational policy and adventurism. Some 800,000 people between 16 and 25 are, as Ministers know, out of work, outside training and outside education. I have travelled the country and spoken to people about the future and their hopes. I have had the experience in my surgeries, which many others have had, of helping mothers with one, two or three young children. Another woman may come along as an adviser or part of the negotiating team, but there is no man present.
At first, that used to bother me greatly because of the social implications, but I began to focus on the children themselves, especially the young boys. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) mentioned the gender gap in school performance, and I thought of the next generation who have no male role model at home and, increasingly, no male role model in primary schools. If they have a male role model, it is somebody involved in crime or drug dealing on the streets.
Their one means of escape is an education system that inculcates the values that I would hope every sensible Member of the House would like to see inculcated. That will happen only if we have a commitment to an education


system that lends itself—as we have repeated ad nauseam, some might say—to economic prosperity and social cohesion, so that all our children have the opportunity to avail themselves of the best educational advantages.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Once again, the debate has illustrated the gulf between the Government and the Opposition on education matters. We have taken actions to improve standards: they have resisted those actions. We have recognised the need to build up this country's competitiveness: they have, for far too long, been concerned with levelling down, if indeed they have been concerned at all.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends who have spoken have set out what has been achieved. As my right hon. Friend made clear, there is always further to go, but the programme of action that we have carried through has been the most radical and far-reaching on record. It has covered the content of education and the measurement of pupils' performance, the quality of teaching, greater diversity and greater choice for parents, and more effective inspection and accountability.
As has also been made clear during this short debate, those significant improvements have been achieved despite consistent and persistent opposition from the Labour party in the House, many Labour local authorities and the left-wing establishment of the teaching unions.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had a bit of fun at the start of debate, and what is sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander. One might have thought that there had been no comment in the media in the past few days about the latest emanations on education policy from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
For instance, where has the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) been this evening? We welcome the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to the debate, albeit in a silent capacity. I do not know who was the mysterious, well-placed left winger who said:
We are under some sort of loyalty test to see at what point we break and complain".
But let us not hear too much from the Opposition about alleged or invisible divisions in the Government. We are united, and the Opposition are visibly starting to fall apart. I might also point out that Conservative Members have sat throughout this debate waiting to speak and unable to get in, whereas, on an Opposition day, there have been no more than three Labour Members on the Back Benches for most of the debate.
The hon. Member for Brightside said that selection had failed, and he made that statement as if it needed no explanation. It is an interesting statement, because most other countries seem to believe in selection, and seem to believe that it works. Never mind—the hon. Member suggests that it has failed.
I do not know what he bases that assertion on. He certainly does not base it on the views of the parents and pupils at the 161 selective schools we currently have. If the hon. Gentleman has been talking only to right hon.

and hon. Members in the shadow Cabinet, he might have received a biased version, because 16 of the 20 members of the shadow Cabinet went to a grammar school or to a fee-paying school. In typical socialist style, they have enjoyed the education, but then they want to pull up the ladder to stop anybody else sharing it.

Mr. Kilfoyle: rose—

Mr. Squire: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Would the Minister seriously have expected people at the age of 11, back in the 1950s and 1960s, to walk out on the only education provided for them? Is he seriously holding them guilty of a choice made, perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, by their parents?

Mr. Squire: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for attending at age 11 the school that his parents selected, any more than I blame him for keeping his child at a school that has gone fully selective. It is extraordinary that, out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have benefited from a grammar school education, there is a massive concentration of individuals who did not and do not like grammar schools—and they are all in Labour's shadow Cabinet.

Mr. David Jamieson: If grammar schools are so good, perhaps the Minister will explain why, despite, proposals from local authorities of all political persuasions, the Government and previous Conservative Governments have signed order after order to close nearly all the grammar schools in Britain.

Mr. Squire: Local education authorities retain significant responsibility for planning the education they deliver. I am delighted that some far-seeing LEAs have retained their grammar schools.
The hon. Member for Brightside, responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), inadvertently implied that money was going from Calderdale—or any other authority that has had top-slice money in nursery provision—to other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman, who is extremely knowledgeable in these matters, knows that that is not so. The vouchers that go to Calderdale, as to any other LEA, whether funded by the top slice or the additional millions of pounds that the Government are putting in, are spent within the LEA. Any suggestion that the money is climbing into a train and going down to Lambeth is untrue.

Mr. Blunkett: As the Minister has targeted the issue, perhaps he will confirm that, on the basis of a snapshot decision on four-year-olds already in nursery provision, the standard spending assessment will be adjusted to take


the £1,100 per pupil aged four from the providing authorities, to redistribute it with the paper promise of a voucher.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I just said. He implied in an earlier response that the money travelled around the country.

Mr. Blunkett: indicated dissent.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman does not understand, which is even more worrying. I am reaffirming that the money will be spent by parents within the LEA as they see fit.
It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is a likeable cove in many respects, can sit through two months of nursery education debate yet still repeat the tired and wrong statement that £20 million will be spent on administration. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true because it has been pointed out to him many times. Not even half that amount will be spent. But I must not confuse the hon. Gentleman with the facts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boy son) gave another of his brilliant performances, taking us back to the dreaded days of long ago, which may still be with us in Islington. Drawing on his experience as a former head teacher but echoing the comments of Her Majesty's chief inspector, my right hon. Friend made the powerful point that we are essentially talking not about money but about the way a school is organised and that money is spent. Countless independent reports show that that is so. If I can do nothing more than persuade Opposition Members on that point, I will have enjoyed a major success.
My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted the excellence of grant-maintained schools in his constituency—all but one of which are self-governing. We know the quality of education they are delivering and the popularity they enjoy with parents. Such schools are directly threatened by the election of a Labour Government and by the official Opposition's Liberal allies. Those schools would lose 10 per cent. of their budgets and would, unasked, have imposed on them two councillors. As those schools have shown that they know how to operate, why should they be interrupted and interfered with that way?
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) talks to parents at one or more of the schools in his constituency. When they mention funding, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman immediately points out the significant increase under this Government since 1979—anxious as he would be, as a fair man, to ensure that parents have full information. The hon. Gentleman said that any Government enjoying his support would have to return city technology colleges to LEA control. I believe that was a slip, because CTCs have never been under such control but are independent charities.
The hon. Member for Bath rightly emphasised the importance of good morale in teaching. There is no divide on the importance of retaining good teachers and ensuring that their morale is high. The turnover rate quoted by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) was broadly correct, but 8 per cent. a year is not unreasonable. I do not want one teacher who is still delivering excellent education to leave the profession early, but we must keep

the matter in perspective. Teachers who in good, improving schools usually have higher morale. There is an exact link between the two, so the better schools become, the more teacher morale will improve.
I welcomed, as ever, the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who speaks with additional authority as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. I liked the tenor and content of my hon. Friend's speech. Governments have responsibility for establishing a proper framework, but much that happens in our schools lies with the head teacher and governors. They can, however, be galvanised by external and informed assistance from LEAs or the Government—and should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) gave his customary robust reminder of educational realities. I welcomed a number of his home truths. He and others of my hon. Friends reminded the House how impossible is Labour's position when it claims to speak for standards in education.
Everything in which the hon. Member for Brightside claims to believe now is alien to the views that he preached before he took his current job, when he opposed testing. At the conclusion of an education debate in 1987, he said that, as a parent of three primary-aged children, he demanded the right to be able to choose whether they should have to go through the performing hoop of a national test based on a national curriculum imposed by a national Secretary of State. Philip Stephens writes in today's Financial Times that Labour has
rewritten every line of the schools policy on which Labour fought the 1992 election.
It gets worse. After the 1992 election, for some time we enjoyed the benefit of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) as Labour's education spokesperson. She repeatedly made clear her opposition to the curriculum and regular testing.
There is an historical precedent. In 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail. He was not sure where he was going, and nor did he find what he was looking for—but we know that he found something he was not looking for, and called it something else.
Five hundred years later, Labour's leadership set sail, looking for an education policy under Commander Sedgefield, Captain Brightside, first mate Walton and a motley crew of LEAs. They were not sure where they were going. Their intended destination was the land of ancient Labour civilisations—child-centred education, monolithic comprehensives, all-ability teaching and tolerance by Labour-controlled LEAs of mediocre school performance. Whenever Labour's leadership have found one of them, they have been largely deserted by everyone else.
Labour's captain set a new course using stolen charts, and the leadership discovered some truly wondrous Tory education civilisations—regular testing and inspection, the publication of results, greater parental choice, grammar and other specialist schools, and self-governing GM schools. Labour's LEA crew were not looking for any of those. Those were not the destinations for which they had signed up. On the voyage of the Bounty, the officers were dumped overboard by the crew. On this voyage, the entire crew were being dumped overboard by the captain.
Even as the ship headed for home, the crew were silent but mutinous. They did not believe a word of Captain Brightside, and most of them were determined to carry on as they had always done for years—putting LEA control and educational dogma ahead of quality and greater parental choice.
They were not alone. The former ship's purser and deputy commander, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) announced that he wanted egalitarian schools, another of those favourite old civilisations. The able seaman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), said of Commander Sedgefield that it ill became the product of an elitist school who had rejected the LEA system for his own offspring to pontificate on teaching methods in comprehensives.
The only diversion on the voyage was the discovery of a stowaway from Bath, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who had crept on board years ago and was now desperately trying to find a way to escape the impending shipwreck.
Was it really a great voyage of discovery to benefit future mankind? Hardly. It was just a paddle around Walworth road pond in a broken-masted old tub with only a lick of paint to suggest that things had really changed. The Labour party is incapable of significant change on education. Only the Conservative Government have consistently stressed the need to improve education standards and have put in place the necessary framework to drive them up still further. I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 285

Division No. 140]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Hilary
Chidgey, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Church, Judith


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Darling, Alistair


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Callaghan, Jim
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Denham, John
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Donohoe, Brian H
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Etherington, Bill
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
MacShane, Denis
 
Fisher, Mark
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Galbraith, Sam
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


Garrett, John
Meacher, Michael


George, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchcliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hodge, Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Keen, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lewis, Terry
Snape, Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Soley, Clive






Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Spellar, John
Wallace, James


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Walley, Joan


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stott, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Wise, Audrey


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.


Vaz, Keith





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James
 
Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beggs, Roy
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Sir Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas 

Butler, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Churchill, Mr
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gorst, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
 
Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Colvin, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Congdon, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn





Hague, Rt Hon William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)
 
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim
 
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith 

Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter 

Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm 

Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard






Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen


Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the measures which Her Majesty's Government has introduced to raise educational standards through greater diversity and parental choice, the establishment of a common framework for the curriculum, assessment and regular testing, greater self-government for schools and colleges, and enhanced accountability through inspection and the publication of performance information; and welcomes the increases in achievement and participation which have followed.

Prior Options Review

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Government support for science and technology is vital to the United Kingdom's future; recognises the crucial long-term contribution which the public sector research establishments make to the economy and to extending the boundaries of knowledge; regrets the rationalisation and fragmentation of these establishments in recent years and opposes the dogma-driven privatisation objectives of the Prior Options Review.
The Opposition have initiated the debate because we are deeply concerned about the Government's policy towards public science in general and towards Government research establishments in particular. We are concerned about the Government's policy of short-termism, including the encouragement of short-term contracts; we are concerned about the review after review after review to which the establishments are subjected; and we are concerned about the Government's obsession with privatisation.
Perhaps I should preface my remarks by making a statement that I think would command general support in the House: that science is good for us. There is general support for the view that we should invest as much as we can reasonably afford in science, engineering and technology and in research and development. Of course, when I say "science" I refer not only to the public sector but to the private sector. Indeed, in "forward look" 1996 the Government's chief scientific adviser reminds us that there is still concern about the level of investment in research and development by some private industry sectors. He points out that there was an increase in real terms last year; indeed, there has been an increase three years in a row. I take it as common ground across the House that we want to encourage more investment by business in science, engineering and technology.
This debate is about public science. I want to set out the case for the Government research establishments and public science. There are at least four reasons why public science is important. First, it is in the long-term interests of our people that we carry out long-term basic research. It extends the boundaries of our knowledge, but sometimes—and this is often wholly unpredicted—it leads to unexpected practical applications and to the development of new products for the benefit of business. By its very nature, basic long-term research is very costly. It is especially suited to the public sector.
Secondly, the Government need as broad a science base as we can afford to provide advice to various Departments on the development and implementation of policy, but also to ensure that we are able to respond to unpredictable national emergencies, such as a new infectious disease in the human population or in our livestock or crops—for example BSE, which may have human implications, or another oil spill disaster like those off the west coast of Wales and off Shetland. We need that broad scientific base to make it easier for the Government to respond intelligently to a national emergency.
Thirdly, we need Government research establishments to provide advice to industry and business. When I talk to business representatives, I am impressed by how highly


they speak of independent Government research, which is how they see it. That is how farmers, business men and industry generally see Government research establishments. They think of them as being independent, in a way that they do not think of research or science in the private sector. So those research establishments are a valuable resource for advice and information, and often for collaboration, with private business.
Fourthly, those establishments also provide highly skilled scientists, technicians and engineers for our industry. If one talks to people in business, one will again find that they regard that matter as very important. A tremendous level of expertise and experience is built up in those establishments, and those highly trained people are free to move on at will into business and industry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he is making a very important case very well. He will know that we have our share of marine laboratories in my constituency in the form of the Rowett Research Institute and, in Aberdeen, the Macaulay Institute. On the basis of what he has just said, does he agree that Government require independent advice that is not and cannot be commercially compromised, and that industry requires independent advice that is not politically motivated? In those circumstances—for public policy purposes—those institutes must be publicly funded and independent. Does he believe that the scientific advice on which the Government depend in the BSE crisis would be credible if it depended on institutions that required commercial contracts for their bread and butter?

Dr. Strang: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. I pay tribute to the Rowett Research Institute, which is an excellent institution with a tremendous history and a tremendous record in research. I have frequently had the pleasure and privilege over the years of talking to scientists from the Rowett.
Those are four reasons—among others; I shall confine myself to four—why I believe that public science, and particularly Government research establishments, are a vital national resource that we should support and encourage.

Mr. Paul Marland: I was rather alarmed by what the hon. Gentleman said about scientists in the private sector. The natural conclusion of his allegations against scientists in the private sector is that they are bent and that the only scientists who tell the truth are those funded by the Government.

Mr. Bruce: Grow up.

Mr. Marland: It is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman said that we want straight and untainted scientific advice, and that that could not be obtained other than from a Government-funded source.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. I do not think that any other hon. Member believes that I intended to malign or criticise scientists in the private sector. If scientists work for a fertiliser company and go to farms to give farmers advice, especially about fertiliser application levels, it would be regarded as less independent than advice from an independent,

Government-funded establishment, such as the Agriculture Development Advisory Service. That is only common sense, and it is not meant to criticise those scientists.
Right after the 1992 general election, for the first time in almost 30 years, the Government appointed a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science—the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was the predecessor of the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the current Agriculture Minister may know, his father was—almost 30 years before—the Cabinet Minister responsible for science.
In 1993, the then Minister with responsibility for science produced an important White Paper entitled "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology." I do not propose to quote from that document, but it argued that many services and functions in Government research establishments should be provided by private industry. That has been the starting point for this dreadful saga.
A back-up paper was published along with that White Paper, which was entitled "Review of allocation, management and use of Government expenditure on science and technology". I shall quote from four successive paragraphs in it because they illustrate how determined the Government were to push on with privatisation. The first paragraph states:
The first option for consideration is the scope for privatisation.
The next paragraph states:
In some cases, getting the GRE's"—
the Government research establishments—
into shape for privatisation will take time, nevertheless, we believe it should be seriously considered as the first option.
The next paragraph states:
The impetus required to achieve widespread GRE privatisation will not occur so long as there are no incentives for establishments or their personnel to market themselves more widely and aim their work towards commercial applications.
The fourth paragraph states:
We believe that the flexibility of the GREs and their progress towards privatisation would be assisted by the introduction of term contracts for new recruits.
That, sadly, gave impetus to the growth of short-term contracts in Government research establishments, which is something that we deeply regret.
Following that study, the Government produced the "Multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments". Even while it was being produced, they announced that some establishments would be privatised, one of which was the National Engineering Laboratory— which will be dealt with in closing by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), because he has a particular interest and is particularly knowledgable in it. The Scrutiny Committee recommended that the Building Research Establishment and the Agriculture Development Advisory Service be considered as likely candidates for privatisation.
As many hon. Members will be aware, that report did not receive a very good response from the scientific community. It certainly did not receive plaudits from our Select Committees. In the first paragraph of its conclusions, the Select Committee on Science and Technology quoted the Institute of Biology as stating
The [Scrutiny Report] refers to 'substantial rationalisation of civil research establishments over the last ten years or so,' and certainly research institutes have been subjected to frequent


structural changes, many of them reversing the main thrust of the previous one. Whether this can be regarded as 'rational' or not it has reduced research capacity and demoralised scientists.
The Science and Technology Committee in the other place stated in its summary of conclusions:
We are concerned that the Scrutiny team were from the outset restricted by their terms of reference, which placed a higher priority on privatisation than on any other model or reorganisation which could be achieved …
We do not believe that sufficient attention has been paid to the question of the effectiveness of public sector science in the pursuit of wealth creation and quality of life as laid down by the White Paper".
What was the Government's response to all that? It was to embark on a further attempt at privatisation and to announce that the prior options review would be extended to cover all those Government research establishments.
In case any hon. Member is under any illusions, I shall quote one prior options review guideline. It states:
In considering appropriateness, the presumption is to privatise; in other words, there is a need to turn the question around, so that it represents a judgment as to the appropriateness of keeping the body in the public sector. It is not just a question of the private sector, nor is the issue purely one of saving money.
Of course the question is not one of saving money, because, as we have found out, implementing those privatisations very often costs the Exchequer substantial sums of money.
We had the Scrutiny Committee report. We then had the prior options review, and we were asked to examine that. Last month, we received the results of the first tranche of the prior options review.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does not my hon. Friend think it ironic that, although they say that they regard the objectivity of scientists as a particularly important issue, the Government, as reported in the New Scientist, are being accused by those very scientists, following the Royal Society meeting, of plugging away at the evidence until they get the answer that they want? The Government are not being objective; they are simply taking an ideological stand.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If I am taking a little time on this matter, it is precisely to spell out that fact. In my opinion, it is incredible that we should have review after review—but what was the outcome?
In one of the first written answers given after the prior options reviews, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in relation to the agriculture and plant sciences institutes:
Prior options reviews have been completed of the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environment Research, the John Innes Centre and the Selsoe Research Institute. I am satisfied that the functions of these Institutes are needed and that they should maintain their separate existence … I have concluded that full independence from the public sector, with the greater freedom this will provide the Institutes to direct their own affairs, would be a desirable option which merits further consideration. This will therefore be the subject of further work led by the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 270.]
How on earth can the Government justify that?
We have had review after review, but the threat of privatisation is still hanging over those research establishments. What sort of effect does the Minister think

that has on their morale? Of course, those establishments are not the only ones affected: the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute are candidates for privatisation, as are a number of others about which no indication was given, although they could include the Horticultural Research Institute and the Central Science Laboratory. Of course, we know that ADAS is to be privatised.

Mr. Mike Hall: My hon. Friend mentioned the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which controls the Daresbury and the Rutherford and Appleton laboratories. The Daresbury laboratory is in my constituency. It has undergone two reviews, and it has now been determined that it will stay as a non-departmental public body in the public sector, accountable to the Department of Trade and Industry. Most important, Daresbury runs a synchrotron radiation source, which involves premier physics research.
However, Daresbury has to plan now for its replacement. That replacement, which is called Diamond, will cost about £100 million. Rather than continual reviews, we need long-term planning and investment by Government so that the Daresbury laboratory can continue its first-class physics research.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the representations that he has made on behalf of that laboratory. He rightly points out that long-term investment is needed there.
As I said, Government policy has meant the continued demoralisation of scientists. When I made the case for public science earlier, I said that one of the reasons for these Government research establishments was so that the Government could respond to the unexpected. Let us consider what has happened with BSE in cattle, something that was certainly not expected when it was found in 1985 and identified in 1986.
Every year, in the annual debate on agriculture, I have criticised the Government for their cuts in food and agricultural science. Indeed, Government-funded food and agricultural science has suffered proportionally greater cuts than other research. On 22 May, The Independent wrote:
The Government's chief scientific adviser yesterday conceded that spending cuts had damaged the Ministry of Agriculture's … scientific capacity at the time when public concern had grown over mad cow disease in Britain.
Over the past 10 years, Government spending on research and development across all departments has fallen by £1.6bn in real terms—about a quarter. Maff s spending has been cut slightly more than the average.
Sir Robert May, the chief scientific adviser, said that over the past decade Maff had focused narrowly on research and development which touched its central policy objectives, with the result that it was now less able to respond to new challenges like BSE.
He added: 'I think Maff might now recognise that decreasing veterinary expenditure is something to be reconsidered.'''
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the cuts were severe. The Meat Research Institute at Bristol, which was concerned with meat safety and conditions in abattoirs, was closed during that time.
On 20 March, a date that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will always remember because that was when he and the Secretary of State for Health made their important announcements about a possible link


between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the director of the Institute of Animal Health announced that 60 posts would go. That institute includes the neuropathogenesis unit which employs the Government scientists who are at the forefront of the work being done on BSE and the possibility of a link between it and CJD.
In 1982, the Institute of Animal Health employed 842 people; it now employs 489, more than 40 per cent. of whom have temporary appointments. The institute has sought to protect BSE research, but it has meant cuts in other areas. Of course, this institute is concerned with animal diseases generally and is a centre of excellence.
The Minister will of course tell us that the Government have increased spending on BSE research—I should hope so, as it was identified only in 1986 and has increased significantly. Much of the increased spending has, sadly, been at the expense of expenditure on other Government research. That is the point—we have to have a broad base of scientific capability in the Government so that the Government can respond to the unexpected. We do not know what the next infectious disease or problem will be in our livestock.
Having slashed expenditure and many of the posts at the Institute of Animal Health, that institute is now a candidate for privatisation. It is in the second tranche now being considered under the prior options review. The same is true of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which is also in the forefront of work on BSE.
Does any hon. Member really believe that the British people will thank the Government for privatising BSE research? It is incredible that the Government can even contemplate taking that road.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I shall give way in a moment.
It is not only the Veterinary Laboratories Agency that is threatened with privatisation, because the third tranche includes the Norwich food research institute, the Rowett Institute, which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned, and the other food research establishment.
I now give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), but this is the last intervention that I shall take.

Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of scientists on short-term contracts. He is now mentioning with absolute horror the fact that some research institutes may go into the private sector. Would his party be prepared to take them back into the public sector? If so, how much would it cost the public purse?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we shall judge the situation if and when we inherit power. The reality is that the Conservatives have to defend their policy of privatisation, but, in terms of BSE research and long-term basic research, they are attempting to defend the indefensible.
There are three lessons that we can learn already from the BSE experience. First, we need a strong research base, a large basic capability among agricultural scientists within the Government sector. Secondly, there is no place for deregulation of food safety. Thirdly, food safety

regulations have to be enforced. They have to be enforced by public servants, which is why it is tragic that the Government have reorganised, rationalised and demoralised the state veterinary service to the extent that they have. Of course, on top of all that, we know that they are going to press ahead with the privatisation of ADAS.
I would like to refer to a number of the research establishments threatened with privatisation and spell out to the House just how valuable and important their basic, long-term research is and why it should stay in the public sector, but time does not allow me to do that. Government science is of huge importance and the Government research establishments have a crucial role to play.
We are against the growth of short-term contracts and the threat of privatisation—what an appalling way to manage Government science. For three years, those scientists have been under the threat of privatisation and, as I have pointed out, that threat is going to continue for many establishments. We support public science, we support the Government research establishments and we want an end to that uncertainty. That is why I ask hon. Members to vote for our motion tonight.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to science, engineering and technology, as reaffirmed in the Forward Look 1996 (Command 3257-I); and endorses the programme of prior options reviews of public sector research establishments, which aims to secure the best possible quality science and technology for the United Kingdom with the best value for money from the substantial public resources spent on science.'
I very much welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has given the House to outline the Government's position on the issues to which he referred and to respond to questions that he raised. I shall concentrate primarily on those issues for which I have a departmental responsibility and, in his reply to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology will respond to a range of the other issues that I am sure will be articulated in the debate.
I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will forgive me if I say that one of the themes that seemed to underlie his speech to the House was a profound disapproval of the process of privatisation. I detected in his speech a basic hostility to the process of transferring functions and activities from the public sector to the private sector.

Mr. Marland: Old Labour lives.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has articulated the precise point. Much as I like and respect the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, none the less, in a very real sense, he represents the articulate but traditional voice of old Labour, and he sits on the Opposition Front Bench making policy.
The hon. Gentleman's general observations sit uneasily with the huge benefits that have flowed from the process of privatisation. In real terms, telecom prices have fallen by 35 per cent., domestic gas prices by 18 per cent. and domestic electricity prices by 8 per cent. All those


industries were in the public sector at one stage. Those huge benefits flowed to the consumer through the process of privatisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman reads the Evening Standard. He will see today the huge benefits that flow to consumers of electricity, gas and the telephone through the process of privatisation.
Let me make another point which is quite funny. The hon. Gentleman is basically against privatisation, he says, yet when—not very often, I should add—I read the house magazine of the Labour party, The Guardian, which I assume is fairly well informed on these matters, I find that the Labour party proposes to privatise certain parts of the Foreign Office. On the one hand, it displays a deep-rooted hostility to the concept of privatisation, yet on the other hand, although the hon. Gentleman may not know it, his colleagues propose to privatise some of the top ambassadorial posts in the Foreign Office. So there is a certain mismatch of ideas.
I should like to make some general points and then to turn to the particular. First, the Government are committed to science. Our objectives are to maintain a strong and dynamic science and engineering base in the United Kingdom, to have access to the best scientific advice and to secure a strong underpinning of basic and strategic science and the supply of high-quality scientists. Those considerations have caused us to ring-fence and defend the science budget, which has risen in real terms by some 10 per cent. in the past 10 years.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister accept, however, that in the past 10 years there has been a reduction in science spending by the Government of £1 billion in real terms? This is plain for all to see in the "forward look" statistical supplement. The Minister does us a disservice by assuming that we are looking only at the amount that is spent by the Office of Science and Technology, as that represents a very small part of the Government's budget.

Mr. Hogg: The science budget to which I have referred is designed primarily to maintain the strategic science base. Therefore, an important part of the research capacity is reflected in the expenditure committed to that. It is perfectly true that Departments have reduced expenditure. There are a variety of reasons for that. The first is the important need to move Departments away from near-market expenditure and into more strategic expenditure. That process was put in place in the mid-1980s, and it is extremely important.
Secondly, it is right to inform private sector organisations that they have an important responsibility to fund research from which they themselves are the beneficiaries. Thirdly, any Government who intend to reduce public spending have to look critically at all heads of expenditure. It is difficult to say that, as a matter of definition, the science budget within any Government Department should be excluded from any economies. That is certainly not my view.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister. Will he address himself to a slightly wider issue and a genuine dilemma that all Governments now face? The greater complexity of the scientific problems with which they have to grapple—BSE is a classic example—

means that few people who advise the Minister do not have some direct commercial experience. Indeed, they may be inculcated with direct commercial experience. So the Minister is dependent for advice on a group of scientists whose background is in the particular industry and commercial undertaking that may well be affected by his decisions. He has to recruit his advice from a group of reformed poachers—perhaps only marginally reformed poachers—in undertaking his gamekeeper role.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the only advice worth having is that from public sector research establishments. That is absolutely not my view.
I should like to go through the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was making in support of his arguments for the public sector research facilities. He produced four important arguments and I do not find myself dissenting from them as general propositions. Indeed, they have great deal of force. My Ministry, being scientifically based, is as heavily reliant on science in all aspects of its work as any Government Department, and rather than more than most. For that considered reason, we invest about £125 million in scientific research. No doubt the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will say that we have reduced the amount. We have indeed made a small reduction over last year as part of a process of making economies that are justified and necessary if we are to reduce the volume of public expenditure.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall make some progress.
In the context of agriculture, we have shifted the main focus of research. I imagine that when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East began his professional career, he was concerned primarily with expanding food production, as that was the principal concern in the 1970s. That has changed somewhat. We are now seeking to make more effective use of resources by reducing inputs, trying to ensure that agriculture is truly sustainable and having regard to a range of environmental matters that were probably not sufficiently addressed some time ago.
The Ministry has other important functions to perform for which it relies directly on scientific guidance— protection of the public and ensuring that food is safe and, of course, investigation into animal and plant diseases. All those functions have to be carried out effectively—in a cost-effective way. It is perfectly true that one has to be satisfied about the integrity of the advice that one receives, but I do not accept that one can be satisfied about it only if it comes from public sector research establishments.

Dr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall make some progress, then I shall give way.
This is where the prior options review comes into play. It is part of a process that we have put in place to determine where research is best undertaken. The prior options review involves a serious consideration of whether the research undertaken by an establishment continues to be required; whether it should be funded by


the public sector; whether the research needs to be undertaken by a public sector body or whether it could be as well undertaken by a private sector body; whether there is scope for rationalisation with other public sector research establishments working in similar areas; and how the functions could be managed in future. Those are all proper questions to ask.
As I understood him, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, fairly, that the asking of such questions was not driven primarily by a desire to make economies. Indeed, he argued that economies would not be made. He said that the review was a dogmatic approach to the process of providing the functions. Surely it is right from time to time to ask such questions of those departments so that we can ensure that the functions are performed in the best possible way.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister is absolutely right to say that such questions should be asked. What would he recommend in relation to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?

Mr. Hogg: The recommendations are advice to Ministers. When we have come to our conclusions—I shall turn to the departments for which I have responsibility in a moment—we will have to announce them swiftly. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is quite right about staff morale. It is important that decisions are announced with all possible speed. We shall also have to explain the considerations that have led us to those conclusions, and we shall do that by way of a memorandum to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I am going to make some progress.
I turn to the prior options review in the areas for which I have departmental responsibility. Five Ministry organisations are involved: the research and development arm of ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International, the Directorate of Fisheries Research and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The reviews of ADAS's R and D, the Central Science Laboratory, Horticulture Research International and the Directorate of Fisheries Research began in October. The review of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency started in February.
The reviews are important and it is important that we carry them through thoroughly. The points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—the need to ensure continuity in contracts, the need to ensure the availability of high-class scientific advice and the other considerations to which he drew our attention—clearly have to be addressed in the reviews.

Mr. Robert Atkins: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I represent a substantial number of growers. Doubtless I will represent more as time goes on. They are very successful, make use of research information from Horticulture Research International and are concerned not so much about whether HRI will be privatised as about whether smaller growers—as many of them are—will have access to

information on much the same terms in future. They are fearful of a major company taking over HRI, using the research for its own information and thus depriving smaller growers of access to it. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend's points are important. He has represented the interests of horticulturists in his constituency with considerable force and success over many years. I note from what he has said, and agree, that the horticulturists are not opposed to privatisation. They want to ensure that contracts are constructed in such a way as to ensure that horticulturists continue to receive a similar kind of advice on the same broad terms. Those are important considerations and we shall have to reflect on what my right hon. Friend has said.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is getting very upset, so I must give way.

Dr. Jones: I am grateful that the Minister has eventually given way. He said a few moments ago that the review's advice was given directly to Ministers, yet the press release that announced the decision on 22 May specifically stated that the review found that the functions carried out by the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils should remain in the public sector. The press release omitted to mention what the review found in respect of other institutions. Why was that? What did the review find? Is it not a fact that the Government are determined to privatise those institutions and will continue with endless reviews until they get the answer they want?

Mr. Hogg: No, I do not agree with that. As I am the most pragmatic of men, I do not start from any dogmatic position on such matters. There may be dogmatic positions that I would assert, but they do not apply in this area of policy. I assure the hon. Lady of that. On disclosing information, we shall, as I have said, submit memorandums to the Science and Technology Committee in respect of any decisions that, ultimately, we make and explain our reasons that way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that he would "reflect" on the problems raised by HRI. Is he— or at least one of his junior Ministers—prepared to meet Dr. Flegg and his colleagues to discuss the matter in depth?

Mr. Hogg: Any request for a meeting would clearly be seriously considered. I shall not give a commitment, because I do not know the gentleman in question and would like to reserve my position. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who I suspect is articulating just the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, will want a meeting with Ministers. Should that be so, I look forward to seeing him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the way in which the House tends to operate. Members ask to see Ministers and Ministers are well advised to see Members promptly. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many such meetings, and no doubt there are many more to come.

Sir Dudley Smith: Horticulture Research International is in the now


socialist-occupied constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, but a fair number of people who work there live in my constituency next door. I am very concerned about their future. Many are skilled people who have a great deal of expertise. I support privatisation—there is no question about that—but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not leave those good people in limbo for too long and will make a fair and considered judgment, bearing in mind the human element besides the best way in which to proceed.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly and well. It is important that, in respect of any review that affects people's livelihood and way of life, we come to a decision as speedily as possible and that such a decision is based on good judgment, sound science and considerations that we can defend in the House. I tell my hon. Friend that we shall do just that. We have demonstrated our commitment to the research that HRI undertakes by a substantial investment of about £40 million in recent years. Clearly, it is important for us to ask in an orderly way what is the best way, in the national interest, to provide the kind of service that it provides. We will come to a decision as soon as we can.
In the case of the Directorate of Fisheries Research, the Government announced on 22 May that we had decided, following the review, that this marine research centre would become an executive agency of MAFF. We believe that that will lead to greater freedom to manage its own affairs and improve performance within a framework of targets. Decisions have not yet been taken in the case of other MAFF laboratories, and we are still considering the cases of ADAS research and development, the Central Science Laboratory and Horticulture Research International. We hope to announce our conclusions as soon as we can.

Mrs. Lait: I welcomed the announcement on 22 May on the Directorate of Fisheries Research, but fisheries research is an inexact science. What progress does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the new agency to make in terms of reaching an agreement with the fishermen on the science of fish movements and stocks?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's question is so broad that to try to condense it into a few lines would not do justice to the issue.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to BSE, an important issue which has concerned the House for some months. He will know that we have substantially increased the amount spent on BSE research in the current year to more than £10 million, an increase of almost 50 per cent. on the previous year. I am anxious to ensure that we have enough resources dedicated to work on BSE.
I have taken the opportunity from time to time to ask Professor Pattison, the chairman of the advisory committee, whether he thinks that the Government are devoting sufficient resources to the problem. His answer has been yes. Should that change, the Government will be anxious to respond to any demand from Professor Pattison or his Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

colleagues. The fact that we are spending more than 50 per cent. more than last year is an important sign of the significance that we attach to research in this field.

Mr. John Garrett: Until 1991, 350 BSE-infected carcases were lobbed into an open landfill site not far from the river that supplies the city of Norwich with its drinking water. Later studies put down boreholes around that site and discovered the transmission through the water table of pesticides, herbicides and chlorides. I have been told by the Environment Agency that there has been no test for the transmissibility of BSE-infected material via leachate from such a site. MAFF gave permission for the dumping of those carcases. Who is responsible for establishing the transmissibility of BSE-infected material that might end up in a river that supplies a great city with its water?

Mr. Hogg: Before giving a considered reply, one would have to look much more closely than the hon. Gentleman and I would have time to do in order to discover the detailed facts of the matter. We are now satisfied that we have identified appropriate ways of disposing of all the specified bovine material and the carcases destroyed under the 30-month rule. We believe that we have addressed all the environmental and health issues that arise out of the regime that we have in place.
The Government are wholly committed to having a proper scientific base for this country. We realise the importance of having access to proper scientific advice, based on expert knowledge that is given with full integrity, but we do not necessarily accept that that can be provided only from within the public research facilities.
When one is spending a considerable sum of public money, it is surely right to ask whether there are better or different ways of providing that quality of advice. Sometimes the conclusion will be that no change should be made, but sometimes it will be that privatisation or contractorisation is appropriate; but to deny oneself the ability to ask that question—as seems to be the position of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—is surely casting away the responsibility imposed on us.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am a non-executive director of the Welding Institute, a research and technology organisation.
It is obvious why the prior options review is being conducted. We have only to look at the projections for science spending for the next few years to realise that the Government are determined to save a great deal of money on the science budget. A headline in the New Scientist said:
The fall and fall of Britain's research funding.
The science budget has fallen by £1 billion in real terms during the past decade, and it is due to fall by a further £500 million in the next four years. If that cut is not to be achieved by privatisation, I should like to know what other method will be used. How can the Government make those savings, except by selling off or privatising the public sector research establishments?
There have been constant reviews since the Government came to office. I remember the Rayner reviews in the early 1980s, and there were reviews of


near-market research in the late 1980s. They continued until Sir Peter Levene's efficiency scrutiny in the 1990s, and we now have the prior options review. There has been an inconclusive response from the Government, which to me suggests a Cabinet split. The Cabinet were determined to make a decision, but found that they were unable to do so. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister disagreed with the views of his colleagues and told them to go away and do their work again. That will mean further reviews by the Department, leading to yet more confusion, indecision and doubt.
The result of those thousands of person years of effort is that a great deal of money has been wasted. In that time, we have seen outright privatisation of institutions such as the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Hydraulics Research Station, the Transport Research Laboratory, the National Resources Institute and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. There is a huge number of other institutions that I could mention. The prior options review is the latest in this catastrophic cutting exercise. Some 43 public sector research establishments, employing more than 20,000 staff, with a turnover of about £800 million a year, are involved. That is a huge exercise in privatisation. We are talking about something that is the size of one of our privatised utilities.
I am pleased that the Opposition have selected this subject for debate. It is terribly important that the issues should be aired and not swept under the carpet, as the Government are determined to do. The questions that the prior options review is asking include: is the function needed? Must the public sector be responsible? Must the public sector provide the function? What is the scope for rationalisation? How will the function be managed? Such questions can lead only to the further question: is the institute ripe for privatisation? The Minister admitted that earlier. The Government's question is, "Can we privatise the function and get it as far away from Government as possible?"
Only two years ago, Sir Peter Levene's efficiency scrutiny concluded that only ADAS—the Agricultural Development Advisory Service—and the Building Research Establishment were ripe for privatisation, yet the Government are putting scientists through an appalling exercise that is causing demoralisation. Scientists are leaving because of the uncertainty. The institutes' efficiency is being much reduced because they cannot work effectively when they are constantly being reviewed.
A more important question concerns the role of Government research establishments. The Government need certain scientific functions to be performed. It has been interesting, during the BSE debate, to hear even the Prime Minister say, for the first time, that he is relying on scientific expertise and advice. We would have to look back over many years of Hansard to find senior Ministers making such statements. There has been a realisation that scientists have an important role to play in advising politicians and that it is important that we listen to them.
How can independent scientific and technological advice, which the BSE crisis has proved to be necessary, be made available to the Government? What is the best way of doing public interest research to improve quality of life, health and safety and the environment? Such research will not be undertaken by commercial organisations. It will be funded only by the public sector. How can the Government respond quickly to the

emergencies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), such as oil spills? Such disasters require input from a range of Government Departments.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend like to add to her list the functions of the public health laboratory service? It has to respond to emergencies and must have the capacity to do so. It has to study disease and the best way to control it. Its scientists are worried about the Government's attitude to its functions.

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend picks an excellent example from the many public sector research establishments that are under threat. Ministers should pay close attention to that. The general public will be deeply concerned when they realise that the important functions of the public health service laboratories are under threat because they are no longer to be carried out by independent scientists.
How can independent scientific advice be made available to policy makers? How can Government scientists' representational role best be performed? When I was working in a non-departmental public body, an important part of my role was to represent the UK Government and to advise them on scientific policy. Scientists in the UK have a reputation for integrity and impartiality. That is important, and should not be let go of easily.
We need to ask how we can improve the flow of high calibre scientists into policy making. Too few scientifically qualified people have gone into senior civil service positions. Some improvements have been made in recent years, and it would be a pity if the flow of scientists into policy making was stopped by privatisations.
Finally, we must ask what public sector research establishments contribute to the national economic effort and our quality of life. The Royal Society expressed its concern by saying:
We are concerned that the first tranche of reviews is already well advanced, without adequate time having been allowed for prior consultation with the scientific community.
It was concerned about the haste and apparent secrecy with which the review was conducted.
Professor Blundell, the head of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, chaired one of the three steering committees set up to review the sell-off plan. He is concerned that the Government may be overlooking the hidden costs of privatisation. He reckons that BBSRC pensions could cost £137 million. From my copy of Laboratory News, I understand that the total cost of pensions from all the institutes under consideration could be as high as £200 million. That explains why universities are not keen to take over some institutes. They are worried about being landed with the high costs of pension provision.
Many scientists are uneasy about the Government's intentions. It has been said several times already that it is feared that, if the Government do not get the answer they want with one review, they will carry out more until they get the answer they want: that the institutes concerned should be sold off.
We must also consider how constant reviews hit the institutes that are on the receiving end. The time and resource commitment of senior scientists during the


reviews has to be borne in mind. It is difficult to conduct high-quality research, whether basic or applied, if it is constantly being interrupted by requests for information and a demand to defend the status quo and undergo review.
There are doubts about privatisation. Jasper Wall, the head of the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge said:
I am surprised to hear that you can go to the market place for skills that took 300 years to put together.
If the Minister has not already visited the observatory, I suggest that he goes to see the amazing effort and the technical expertise in the organisation. That expertise is specific to the observatory and not to be found anywhere in the private sector—certainly not in the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which is one of the suggestions that has been made for the contracting out of that work.
Why is all this being done secretly? I would like a commitment from the Minister to publish the review report and the associated evidence. We have a right, as Members of Parliament, to see them. The scientific research institutes also want them published.
How can the focus of the institutes be retained as a source of scientific advice to the Government if they are privatised, and therefore have very different commercial objectives? Would there have been any funds for specialists working on scrapie, which was described as a quaint disease of museum interest a few years ago, before its connection with BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was discovered? Why continue with this? The decision is based on political dogma rather than scientific necessity.
There are four BBSRC institutes. The independent prior options review teams have recommended that the status quo is the preferred option, yet the signals from the Government suggest that that will not be the option that they adopt. One of the most important questions is whether funding from public sources will continue if the institutes are made even a little more independent than they are at present. The prior options review says that the function is needed, certainly in respect of the BBSRC institutes, but in the view of one director of a research council institute, that function cannot be delivered without underpinning finance, provided in the form of a rolling programme grant.
Core research funding is vital to an institution—a fact that Ministers do not seem to have understood properly. It is recognised in the university sector that research organisations need infrastructure and core funding. It is also recognised by the dual funding support system, with the higher education funding councils supplying money for research infrastructure and core work, and the research councils providing money for specific research projects. One of my constituents has written to me to say:
High quality research requires a reasonable amount of stability, continuity and long-term planning.
That cannot be achieved when scientists have to apply to research councils for grants for every project.
Without an assurance of guaranteed long-term support, there is no way a young doctor or research scientist will commit the rest of his or her life to long-term studies. Without such a commitment, we shall never deliver the crucial information that is so important to the betterment of scientific research.
As a non-executive director of a research and technology organisation, I know at first hand how vital core funding is to any such organisation. Scientists have to be free to pursue areas of inquiry before they are ready to submit a full research application. Without core funding, that becomes increasingly difficult. They need to be able to close gaps in their collective knowledge and to pursue objectives that appear important for scientific, not commercial, reasons.
The lack of core research will lead in the long term to increasing impoverishment of the work that scientists do. I hope that the Minister will deal with that problem when he replies to this debate.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I strongly support the Government's intention to look into how scientific material is garnered by the state for the better information of Government policies. I believe that there is far too much reliance on Government-funded research and scientific bodies at the moment. They all have a vested interest in keeping Government funds—they are very large—flowing their way. Last year, more than £14 billion was spent on such research—a massive amount of public money. The Government are therefore right to evaluate the work of these institutions from the point of view of value for money.
I declare a minor vested interest, in as much as I have worked in science all my working life—as a teacher and researcher, and afterwards developing scientific products which I marketed around the world. In the course of my long working life I have come into contact with a great many people and institutions involved in producing scientific advice and offering scientific opinions.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Lady accept the contention in the 1995 document "Forward Look"—that research is a long-term investment? How does she think these proposals will ensure stable investment in basic research; and does she think that the public will be reassured by advice or statements from Ministers, knowing that that advice has come from the private sector, with its vested interests?

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with the hon. Lady to this extent: it is essential to do our best to find independent sources of research. Where I quarrel with her is over her belief that it is likely to come from Government-funded institutions. They are not independent, since they rely on Government grants and support for the work that they do. We need evidence that is not tainted by political expediency on the one hand or by the interests of commercial ventures which may rely on the research in question on the other. A great deal of excellent research, however, comes out of the pharmaceutical industry in the shape of the development of new products.
Moreover, when evidence or advice emerges from the private sector, that sector is held responsible for the advice if it goes wrong. The development of thalidomide is a case in point. The organisation concerned is still being held responsible for the problems that that product caused. By contrast, the Government fund, endorse and then often insist on the use of pesticides. The fact that the Government have given these substances such strong backing often rules out any independent judgment by


Ministers when they have to decide whether certain pesticides may give rise to serious side effects. There is even one theory suggesting that pesticides may be involved in the BSE problem.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Lady has answered the question about where this independent advice is to come from.

Mrs. Gorman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my arguments I will get to the answer.
I do not question the need for the Government to act in loco parentis on behalf of the public when it comes to matters of public health and requiring advice on them. The question concerns where that advice should come from. I do not think we should rely exclusively on quasi-Government organisations such as the public health laboratory service, ADAS and the myriad other such institutions for that advice.
The scientists working in such institutions are just the same as people in other organisations, commercial or Government-run. They are sometimes wrong; they are sometimes influenced by the need to keep their grants flowing, particularly when their grants are running out. I know of several examples of institutions rushing to publish evidence when a longer period of cogitation about their hypotheses might have been advisable—

Mr. Garrett: HRT, for instance.

Mrs. Gorman: Hormone replacement therapy is a treatment which has been evaluated and in use since the 1940s. It has remarkable effects, of which I am but one example.
We tend to respond too hastily to what are thought to be emergencies. There is a distinction between genuine emergencies such as plane crashes or disasters at sea and scares generated by hypotheses that are published by groups of scientists who may be shroud waving so as to ensure that their grants come through again. Their intention is not to scare the public but to maintain their own positions by putting evidence in the public domain before it has been evaluated by their peer groups—an essential component of scientific progress.
I believe, for example, that the salmonella scare—I have written the world's most authoritative book on it, called "Chickengate"—was partly caused by pressure from the PHLS laboratory near Bristol to keep its premises going. There had been a suggestion that a number of laboratories were to be closed down, and it was from that very laboratory that the salmonella scare emanated. Its diagnosis linked the infection to eggs, which was bogus science. I have done a great deal of research on eggs and infections in eggs, and I can tell the House that they are hermetically sealed by nature specifically to keep bugs out. What is more, bugs that do get in cannot, in that environment, reproduce enough to make anyone ill.
The salmonella scare was nothing to do with farmyards; it was to do with kitchen hygiene. The people using the materials were not using them in clean vessels or in a clean environment. I shall not go into the background of that situation, but the Government rushed to do something as a result of evidence that eventually proved to be faulty. The Government eventually ditched the regulations that brought about the slaughter of almost 4 million chickens,

approximately 10,000 small egg production businesses going down the pan and goodness knows how many hundreds of millions of eggs being smashed in an orgy of public recrimination against the industry. The problem originated as a result of poor hygiene conditions in places that produce food, such as sandwich bars and hospital kitchens.
That is just one example of a scare that was exacerbated, if not generated entirely, by a report from a Government health organisation. I urge the Government to bear in mind that scientists, just like the rest of humanity, are interested in their own survival—and sometimes that survival prompts them to do things that they might not do in other circumstances or if their lifeblood did not depend on it. There are mad scientists as well as mad cows. I urge the Government to keep an eye on the people who put out this research.
I draw the attention of hon. Members to the organisation that deals with our environment—the IPCC—another Government-funded organisation. The organisation has not so much dreamed up, but it has given weight to and endorsed, the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is one of these scares that has generated all sorts of Government regulations—affecting the motor industry, for example. We have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and we have to look at the way in which we dispose of scientific and industrial materials. That scare has led to the IPCC's interference in other industries, quite separately from the original idea of keeping an eye on what was happening with our climate.

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Lady needs to bear in mind that the IPCC's findings were verified through a rigorous process of peer review involving scientists from around the world. It is not as though one Government are funding one Government institute and producing inaccurate results—there has been exhaustive research over a long period.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that much of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration's research and observations on the environment and on environmental changes contradicts a lot of the research of the IPCC. In fact, to have an institution called the International Panel for Climate Control is ludicrous—the idea that human beings, with our puny efforts, can control the climate is ludicrous.

Mr. Dafis: It is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mrs. Gorman: It does not matter whether it is "change" or "control"—the institution has a vested interest in promulgating the idea that we, through our industrial processes, are causing terrible changes in our climate. NASA, another source of information in this regard, has made observations from outside our planet and it refutes that argument. I am inclined to take a balanced view. We should not impose regulations on industries—for example, the car industry in relation to carbon dioxide emissions—that may damage people's livelihoods rather than their health. We should not rush to judgment on the basis of research from institutions of that sort.
I am calling for a much wider level of consultation when the Government have some kind of problem that the public may be concerned about. We have to remember


that a lot of these so-called problems are not generated by the public, or by people within the Ministry, but by many of these institutions. My point is that there is no independent evaluation of these institutions at the moment.
I agree with Government funding of basic science, which includes some of the work carried out at Greenwich and Kew. Such work is valuable and useful, and it is difficult to say where they would get their money if not from the Government. However, I believe that that money could be better spent elsewhere. There is a difference between basic science and science that is based on what are considered to be rather immediate problems, and that is mostly what these Government scientific institutions are involved in.
I believe that the mere fact that these organisations are Government-funded and endorsed gives them a degree of status and credibility that they may not deserve, but which people tend not to question. They are seen to produce Government information and therefore they have a degree of credibility that they may not deserve. The Government should use a number of research organisations—independent organisations that may be generated by groups of scientists currently working in state-funded institutions.
When the Government are presented with a problem—such as cows dying from a disease which at present appears to have no clear origin—they should put out to contract, perhaps with more than one institute, the need to investigate it. The Government would then receive different advice—a number of hypotheses. BSE is in this situation at the moment. We have accepted the views of a group of people, the Edinburgh group, who have come up with a particular hypothesis that there could be a link—and we have instituted draconian measures as a result.
I believe that an article in the Daily Telegraph this week will challenge the whole thesis that the foodstuffs that cows were eating are responsible for BSE. There are theories that BSE could be caused and transmitted by mites—many diseases are transmitted by insects or small crustacea. An example is malaria—no one has tested that route of investigation yet, but there is scientific evidence.
As there is very little independent review, scientific evidence that is lying around in the archives could be introduced into the debate, but it is often ignored. Again, I refer to the BSE scare. Dr. Clive Bruton, who is working in my constituency, is one of the curators of the department of neuropathology's brain bank. Apparently, some little while ago, he published a paper—he did not make assertions that this was the last word—on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. He pointed out that there was plenty of old evidence about this so-called new strain of CJD, which is believed to be the problem. It is believed that this new strain is causing the problem in younger people. We all know that CJD has been around for a long time. It is a rare disease and the number of people in this country dying from it is reducing—I think there were 50 cases last year and 49 the year before.
There is no impetus in an institution that has come up with an hypothesis to spend an adequate amount of time to research the views of its peers by looking through the literature. This is how scientists work: they examine publications from a variety of institutions to test their

hypotheses. Scientists who come up with an idea are under psychological pressure to prove their point and to make their hypotheses stand up. That is what has happened with the Edinburgh group.
I am making the case for a longer period of investigation, particularly when the Government are responding with a knee-jerk reaction because of a scare that is being generated from a single quasi-governmental institution that is dependent on Government funding and support. If we did a little research, we might find a link between the scares and the proximity of the next round of grant allocations. Like everyone else, scientists wish it to appear that their services are vital and are essential to the maintenance of the Government's programmes.
Therefore, I urge the Government not to rely on a single, Government-funded source, but to look instead at stimulating independent institutions that may arise out of the state organisations—as has occurred with other privatisations. The Government could commission them to investigate the problems with which they are presented.
Such institutions may have a data bank to which they could refer to discover the views of other experts in the field. The Government could then refer to those views before reacting. When the Government react against a body of relatively untested evidence, they create the kind of hysteria that surrounded the salmonella crisis and that we are seeing again in the BSE crisis. That has huge knock-on costs in other industries—in this case, the £4 billion beef industry. The Government must now deal with the problems that their response has created in relation to rendering plants, for example. That is an on-going dilemma: one problem generates another. It is a very disruptive process and not how science should assist Government or the community.
I believe that the Government have a strong responsibility to do what they can to establish independent institutions. They should not rely on a single source of evidence on which to base their view. The Government must balance the views of different institutions. That is how science works: people from different fields compare their results and arrive at a conclusion on which the Government can base policy decisions.
On the basis of my examination of two cases—the egg scare and the beef crisis—I do not believe that the Government are obtaining good, independent scientific evidence. I am sure that papers yet to be published will conclude that the tenuous links that we are led to believe exist between Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans and bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle have no factual basis. They may find that BSE is not connected with contaminated food and may offer another scientific explanation. One can make a balanced judgment only when one has considered all aspects of the problem. At present we are rushing to judgment because we are relying too heavily on limited areas of investigation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is getting rather repetitive and she is straying from the subject of the debate.

Mrs. Gorman: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the advice being that I should shut up fairly soon.
The Government often turn to special scientific advisers for assistance. Those advisers are attached to all Ministries and the Government obviously rely heavily on


their judgment in reaching their conclusions. I put it to the Government that those advisers must be vetted very carefully in order to confirm their independence.
I draw the attention of the House to the special adviser in the Department of the Environment, Mr. Tom Burke—who I am sure is an honourable man and all the rest of it. He was formerly associated with the Greenpeace organisation and I believe that he has a tainted or biased view about the way in which the Government should handle environmental issues. As a consequence, the Ministry may not receive an independent view.
Therefore, I return to my thesis that the Government could refer to basic science in universities as a source of advice. That might be better than seeking the views of special scientific advisers within Ministries.
Finally, some scares have been generated by scientists. I refer to the Lacey and Lang combination, which was largely responsible for hyping the salmonella scare. Professor Lacey is always ready to offer an hysterical opinion. The newspapers also bear a responsibility for hyping the scares. The Government should seek an unbiased source of advice when taking decisions that have a profound effect on our economy. I believe that that is the right course of action.

Mr. Nigel Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), as her remarks are always controversial and well worth listening to—even if one does not agree with them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may have tested your patience during the sports debate last Friday, when I got rather carried away and spoke for 22 minutes. I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall be brief.
The prior options review reminds me of the reorganisation of local government—the Government set up the review, obtain a reply, they do not like that reply, so they conduct another review. That is what has happened with the scientific research councils.
I welcome the debate, and I am grateful to the Labour party for finding time to raise the subject on an Opposition day. We have not debated scientific issues for some time and on the last occasion hon. Members complained that, as it was a Friday, few hon. Members were present. Few hon. Members are present for tonight's debate—hon. Members may be attending the 60th birthday celebrations of Lord Holme of Cheltenham, but I suspect that their absence has more to do with the annual dinner of the parliamentary beer club.
The challenges facing science today are legion. Appalling levels of pollution mean that solutions to environmental problems are vital for the survival of the planet. In the past 200 years, scientific breakthroughs have led to enormous improvements in health care. This year marks the bicentenary of the discovery of the smallpox vaccine by Edward Jenner, who spent much of his life in my constituency. That was an important breakthrough, and there have been many others since then.
I shall refer tonight to the Medical Research Council units that form part of the prior options review. The MRC is funded mainly by Government grant in aid through the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry. The grant in aid for 1994–95 was

£270 million, which was supplemented by£26 million from external sources, including industry, the national health service and the European Union.
Five MRC units are included in the third tranche of the prior options review from July to December 1996, although there are implications for all 40 MRC units. The units currently included are the toxicology unit at the university of Leicester, the Dunn nutrition unit at the university of Cambridge, the reproductive biology unit at the university of Edinburgh, the radiobiology unit at Harwell and the virology unit at Glasgow. The people who work in those five units do not know how the units were selected for inclusion in the original scrutiny of public sector research establishments, or for the current round of the review. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.
The MRC's mission is to support high-quality research with the aim of improving and maintaining human health. Most MRC units and institutes are integrated within universities; most staff are employed by the MRC, and the director is accountable to the MRC chief executive. Units provide a special research environment that gives the MRC director and staff freedom to commit themselves to full-time research on a long-term basis.
Health-related research develops as a continuum to basic strategic and applied research. Units are required to—and do—exploit the fruits of their research for the benefit of national health and wealth, but their primary purpose is to carry out the highest-quality basic research that the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential" acknowledged should be supported by Government.
Given the inclusion of those private units in the current round, the MRC is now required to devote resources to prior options reviews and to consider other models for ownership and management of its units. The recent announcement in the House about the first tranche of prior options reviews suggests that decisions are being made on the basis that the establishments reviewed so far would benefit from the greater freedom they would have if they were fully in the private sector, whether managed by companies limited by guarantee or by universities that would, for the purposes of the exercise, be seen as being in the private sector.
The primary purpose of most of the public sector research establishments involved in the exercise is to deliver services to Government. The primary function of MRC units is to carry out research relevant to health. If MRC units were turned into companies limited by guarantee, their mission to provide an infrastructure for research into areas relevant to health would change dramatically, as the objective of raising income would become paramount. Similarly, transfer to university ownership where management has other objectives related to teaching, student numbers and income generation would create difficulties in the maintaining of the necessary stability and focus.
The freedom of units to pursue basic research does not mean that they become uncompetitive or ossified. Each programme in their portfolio must compete for support from the council against other claims on its funds, such as grants to universities. If unit programmes fail to win support at peer review level, there are procedures for terminating work, and closing units where necessary. For example, 15 units have been closed in the past 10 years. That has led to staff redundancies where skills cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the council's service.
In the last round of reviews of the five units carried out in the original scrutiny exercise in 1994, many of the units' non-academic customers—for example, industry and the national health service—expressed concern that any change of ownership to the private sector would alter the nature of the well informed and independent policy advice that the units are able to provide: for example, the consultancy service to the food industry offered by the Dunn nutrition unit. The views of those customers will be sought again in the coming round of reviews, but there is no evidence that their position will have changed.
MRC units provide essential freedom for the conduct of long-term basic research that benefits national health and wealth. Unlike that of most PSREs included in prior options reviews, their primary purpose is not to provide Government with services.
"Realising our Potential" confirmed Government's role in funding basic research; it has never been clear why MRC units—which are already rigorously reviewed through independent peer review involving user input—were included in the exercise. Transfer to universities, or to other private sector management, could threaten their freedom rather than increasing it, and would require them to focus attention on activities that would divert them from their mission to improve and maintain human health.
The units' present freedom does not mean absence of competition. They compete for MRC funds against grant proposals, and are closed if peer review standards are not met. Nor does it mean that they are not responsive to customer needs; indeed, customers such as industry and the NHS appear to value their present status and the quality of their independent advice in a range of sensitive policy areas, including the effects on human health of air pollution, radiation and nutrition—to name but a few.
It was always likely that the debate would be hijacked by concerns about BSE. I do not want to go into those concerns, and I will shut up shortly. However, the effects of good scientific and technological developments on our quality of life are enormous. It should be the role of Members of Parliament, including Ministers, to make the public aware of what is going on and of the importance of scientific investment. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) drew attention to the cuts in investment in the scientific budget in recent years. Without proper funding, Britain will fall behind its major competitors—and we in this place must do all in our power to prevent that.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) seems to have joined Labour speakers in the Luddite tendency. Agricultural research must move on. I was very disappointed by the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who has probably been immersed in agricultural research for longer than any other hon. Member present. Many years ago, I learned to listen with respect to what he said on this subject. I must not allude to him further, because he is not in the Chamber; I will merely say that, when he began his career in agricultural research, the raison d'etre was quite different from what it is now.
I have had the good fortune to visit—at least once, and in some cases two or three times—all the agricultural research establishments for which my right hon. Friend

the Minister is responsible. Most were established—certainly expanded—when their raison d'etre was to increase agricultural production: in other words, to induce our stock and soil to yield more, more and still more. The results have been fabulous, verging on the miraculous.
On a farm that I have known since I was a child, yields of wheat used to be only 17 cwt per acre; now they are 3 tonnes per acre. That represents a fourfold increase in my lifetime—rather a long lifetime, admittedly—achieved largely as a result of expenditure, both private and public, on agricultural research over a comparatively short period. Similar marvels can be attributed to what has been done in livestock production. Our cows can now produce almost twice as much milk as they could at the end of the war.
We must now put our farmers and growers on to a lower input-output ratio. We must cool it down, as it were. I do not believe that that can be done without considerable research, and I accept that much of that research must be undertaken in the public sector. That research should be publicly funded in our universities, because that is the proper place.
I am much more sceptical about the public sector than some Opposition Members are. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will be familiar with Babraham on the outskirts of her constituency. The last time I visited that establishment I saw goats with their udders removed from their nether regions, where they normally are, and transplanted to the goats' necks to see whether they would yield more milk in that position. On the previous occasion I visited that establishment—no doubt I met some of the hon. Lady's constituents—the scientists had carried out an experiment with a buck rabbit to find out how many times it could copulate in 24 hours. I have great difficulty in believing it, but I think the answer was 127.
Your money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and mine should not be spent in that way, but that is what happens to public expenditure in that area. Clever scientists—I take my hat off to the ability and brain power of our scientists in those establishments—do such experiments when they get public money. We must recognise that £125 million a year is spent on agricultural research, and we must ensure that we get our money's worth. We will not get our money's worth if the research establishments try to find ways and means by which farmers and growers can produce more and more, with high-tech methods, using ever more pesticides, nitrates and hormones.
Some establishments are taking the opposite approach. In particular, I wish to mention Wellesbourne. Some years ago, I went there for the first time, and I have now been three times. The previous director so inspired me with Wellesbourne's approach that I went away and wrote a book of some 50,000 words about what Wellesbourne and similar establishments were trying to achieve. They are doing invaluable work, but it would be wholly wrong for that establishment to be privatised.
Wellesbourne's research is enabling growers of vegetables to stop using excessive pesticide. If that establishment were sold to the highest bidder, I can imagine that ICI or some other pesticide manufacturer would be only too pleased to buy it up and inhibit the type of research that is undertaken there. Such establishments should continue to be publicly funded.
I also hope that Wellesbourne will have a closer association with Birmingham university. It might be taken over by Birmingham university so that public money


could be spent on its research. I would be angry, and my constituents who are vegetable growers would be concerned and angry, if Wellesbourne were to change its role or have its work inhibited in any way. I therefore entirely support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on the subject.
Other establishments, not only Babraham, are being extravagant. I know Compton well, because it is close to where I live. At Compton, they are engaged in research into animal health. Some of that research is very important, but it is all directed towards helping intensive animal production to be more intensive and towards overcoming the diseases that affect intensive farms. That research should not be carried out at public expense: it should be done in the private sector. It is also wrong that that establishment should have nearly 2,000 acres of agricultural land, which is quite unnecessary for its research.
I applaud what the Government are doing. We are right to reconsider this research. Much of it is valuable and must go on, because it would be quite wrong for it to be inhibited in the future. Much of it, however, is out of date and is no longer the kind of research that we farmers and growers need now. We want different research that will enable us to come down to a lower input-output ratio—as I have already called it—which needs much research that must be publicly funded.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture will know that it is almost impossible for a Minister of Agriculture to please the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer at once, but on this occasion he deserves the support of all three.

Mr. John Garrett: I shall make a few brief remarks about the threat to science and scientifically informed government posed by the prior options review—brief because of the inordinate time taken by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who managed to speak longer than the Front Benchers, and who selfishly rambled on about the same old thing.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Her needle got stuck.

Mr. Garrett: Yes, I know.
One of my concerns is the future of the Institute of Food Research, which employs 350 staff on the outskirts of Norwich—many of them my constituents. Its fate is to be decided by the end of this year, and my constituents are greatly concerned about their futures. The Ministry of Agriculture central science laboratory, which employs 200 staff, and the John Innes Institute, with more than 400 staff, are located in the same science park—which makes it the site of one of the biggest concentrations of bioscientists in Europe.
The IFR's work is of considerable public importance to fundamental research and nearer to market. The institute's food safety work includes working with salmonella, listeria, clostridium botulinum and campylobacter. It also undertakes wide-ranging research into many aspects of nutrition as it affects health. That independent work is performed by highly skilled multi-discipline teams of scientists, many of international repute. It takes years to establish such research groups, and once they were broken

up, they would be lost to British science. That is the real risk posed to the three great research institutions located on the edge of my constituency.
The stability of the support that the IFR's core work receives is vital. The provision of independent scientific information and advice must derive from the continuity that can only come from public funding, which allows the institute to attract funds from the European Union—where, in the case of the IFR, the United Kingdom is a net beneficiary—and Departments, in the form of short-term contracts, some of which are industry-linked. The Norwich research park contributes some £2 million a year to the UK's balance of trade.
Severe problems will arise from the Government's preferred option. A break in the close relationship between the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and its supported institutes would inevitably put their future at risk. Furthermore, perhaps the Minister will refer to the cost of meeting the BBSRC's pension scheme and of any restructuring, which will require a Treasury commitment of several hundred million pounds. The IFR's staff are concerned about not only their future but that of independent research in Britain.
To summarise, the institute is Britain's major independent base for all aspects of food research, including safety, nutrition, diet and health—and it provides independent research of significant public good and has multi-discipline teams of scientists of international repute. Stability and continuity are crucial to maintaining the IFR's independence and multidiscipline research teams. Significant public cost would be involved in making the changes outlined by the President of the Board of Trade.
The John Innes Institute is equally distinguished in horticultural research. It was in the first tranche of prior options examinations, but the institute's 400 scientists and support staff have been told only that more work is needed—to prove, I imagine, that the institute must be privatised.
I am concerned about the Government's policy of privatising as many public sector research establishments as they can, and about the damage that will do to the continuity, independence and integrity of the science base as a provider of information and advice in the public interests. The Government, by privatising and hiving off laboratories, are denuding themselves of people in the civil service, particularly in senior decision-making structures, who have a scientific and technical background, can provide intelligent customers for science, can interpret technically complex developments, and can advise on technically and scientifically complex policies—a need that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue has clearly highlighted.
The Government have made it clear that the presumption will be to privatise or contract out, and that there will have to be strong reasons to prevent that happening. They have made it clear also that, if a private sector competitor is available, public sector bodies will not be allowed to compete for work—which is loading the decision against the Government establishment from the outset.
That can be compared with what the Select Committee said in its comments on the efficiency study:
no major re-organisation should be undertaken unless there are clear benefits which outweigh the costs, both the financial and in terms of disruption to scientific activity.


if it is impossible to identify a structure for government science which is clearly better than the current model, then the aim should be to encourage gradual evolution in response to changing priorities.
In other words, these are successful institutions, which have been built up over a long period. They are centres of excellence with a fund of experience relating to nutrition, health, horticulture and agriculture. It is pure vandalism to split them up and put them at risk of being flogged off to some private organisation which will not be able to provide the continuity and independence that is required.
In their response, the Government said;
In the rapidly changing world of science and technology, the Government must have access to the best scientific and technological expertise and advice and must secure the availability of a supply of high quality scientists and a strong underpinning of basic and strategic science to industrial users.
What is being carried out is just a whim of ideology. These important, successful, long-established and deeply serious organisations with international reputations are being put at risk to satisfy some ideological whim. That is the basis for the proposed policy. If it is private it is good, if it is public, no matter how good it has been in the past, it is bad, according to the Government's view. The scientists in my constituency will not forgive the Government for this act of vandalism.

Mr. Paul Marland: This debate is astonishing. The attitude of Labour Members has been that anything in the private sector is bad and anything that is publicly funded is excellent. The entire nation has grown sick and tired of that ideology from the Labour party. I approve of this review, and all other reviews of Government expenditure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, it is right that we should have the facilities to undertake these reviews and that the Government should carry them out. There is not a taxpayer in the country who does not want to ensure that the Government are getting the best value for the money that is handed over in taxation and that the spending is cost-effective. It is the Government's duty to ensure that that happens.
I remember when housing associations were introduced and the responsibility for constructing houses was virtually taken away from local authorities. We heard a great deal of whining from the Labour party that it would be impossible and that house building would grind to a halt. It has not happened.

Mr. Garrett: It has.

Mr. Marland: No, it has not. In fact, I am going to the opening of a housing association building project in my constituency next week. Building has not stopped.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating housing.

Mr. Marland: I accept the reprimand, but I am looking back at what has happened in the past and at how the Labour party, joined by the Liberal Democrats, has been so completely and utterly wrong. We will probably witness another U-turn in a few minutes.

Dr. Lynne Jones: On housing associations, it was a Labour Government who funded publicly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough about housing and the policies of Labour and Conservative Governments. I want to return to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Marland: That was very even-handed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Marland: I will not give way again. The hon. Lady has been ruled out of order and I refuse to give way. I have the Floor now and I intend to take advantage of that.
It is realistic for the Government to see how much duplication is taking place in research in Government establishments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, there is no doubt that those involved in Government research want to keep their establishment going.
The Labour party will not be interested in any food research stations that have been privatised, but in Chipping Camden there is the Camden food and research Station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I know it well because I was brought up in Chipping Camden. It used to be in the public sector, but it has now moved into the private sector and it is flourishing. We must be forward-looking. It is wrong simply to look back, as the Labour party does. Indeed, that is the attitude of all the Opposition parties.
I accept that we must carefully consider the people who will be affected by any changes the Government may introduce. It is right to focus attention on that point. I hope that when any decision is made in that respect the people involved will be dealt with carefully and fairly. It is quite clear that the Labour party rejects any thought of rationalisation. Indeed, its amendment actually states that. How on earth it can stand on that platform in any debate, on any issue, quite defeats me.
When ADAS—the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service—grew out of an enterprise called NAAS—the National Agriculture Advisory Service—I remember the whingeing we heard from Labour Members about that. In fact, it has been a great success. When veterinary laboratories were set up as an agency and many of the stations were closed, we were told that it heralded disaster. One station just outside Gloucester was closed and I was told that it was the end of the world for some of the farmers in the district, but it has not turned out that way. In fact, there has been no deterioration in the service because use has been made of modern techniques and technology.
On the question of current research and Government policy, I believe it absolutely right that the Government should not become involved in near-market research. They should create the conditions in which industry can flourish—something that they have been very successful in doing—and industry should pay for that research. Near-market research, on which the wealth creators will capitalise and cash in, should be funded by business. We should introduce a tax regime that encourages business to do that and create the trading conditions in which business can make a success of its research.
Some blue-sky research should be financed by the Government—[Interruption.] Yes, it should be financed, but that should be limited. As hon. Members have said, there is no reason why the Government should not contract with the private sector to do that research. It is not the Conservative party that is biased against the private sector, it is old Labour. We have heard a great deal today about what old Labour thinks. The old attitudes have been paraded in the Chamber. The wealth creators must be encouraged to carry out research.
It is wrong to say that there are now fewer jobs in research because of changes in Government policy. In 1986, 134,000 people were employed in research; in 1993—the latest year for which figures are available—the number was 140,000. Therefore, the number of people employed in research has risen, despite the arrival of improved technology to help them with their jobs.
On the question of BSE, I do not see what is wrong with the Government buying in the research they need. This is where the Labour party is parading its dogma—something that it always accuses the Conservative party of doing. I know that I am repeating myself, but I say again that the attitude of the Labour party is that anything that is financed by the private sector is bad, whereas anything that is financed by the Government and the poor old taxpayer is right and without bias. The reason why so many of the old Government-run enterprises were so unsuccessful was that they were badly managed. I again refer hon. Members to the Camden research station, which relished going into the private sector.
We are getting on top of BSE and there has been no shortage of money spent in that cause. It has been a Government priority, and so far £30 million has been spent. Today, that has been increased to £10.4 million this year alone. We have always stood firm on the fact that the advice that we have received has been the best scientific advice available.
It is a great shame that our European partners will not take notice of that advice, much of which—to the great joy of the Labour party—has come from Government—funded research stations. It is a pity that, together, we cannot persuade the Germans to take a bit more notice of that information because, as Professor Pattison—the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—said, there has been no lack of resources for BSE research. The research is the best that is available, and we should be proud to stand by that.
I am astonished that the Opposition have chosen to have this debate in their time. They have made it perfectly obvious that they do not want progress. In their speeches, Labour Members have emphasised that the attitude of old Labour lives on. That attitude has flowed over into the attitude of the Liberal party—which is the trouble with sitting so close to Labour Members. My good friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) has caught the attitude, and it has flowed over into his thinking.
The Labour party has been wrong on every major issue for the past 17 years, and it is wrong on this issue as well. It will not be very long before we see them doing another humiliating U-turn on this issue. I support the initiative, and I urge every hon. Member to do the same.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Horticulture Research International, which is in my constituency, has been mentioned several times in the debate. I very much appreciate the support that has been expressed for that institution. There is certainly no case for destabilising it.
The National Farmers Union describes HRI as
a highly efficient and effective organisation which provides a high quality service to the industry.
Last year, the Select Committee on Agriculture reported:
Horticulture Research International received almost unqualified support for its work from those who gave evidence to us".
Growers, the food industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are thoroughly happy with the way in which HRI serves them.
It is one thing to ask the questions that are asked under the prior options review, but it is another to ask those questions repeatedly and continually, engendering permanent insecurity and permanent instability in the institutions that are affected by it. It is yet another thing to ask those questions while insisting, as do the Government, that they should receive only the answers that they want to hear. The Government seem determined to privatise wherever they can.
Last November, it was indicated that the findings of the prior options review of institutions sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council would be provided by this March. On 22 May, however, the Minister for Rural Affairs said:
the future status of HRI is now to be considered by the Prime Minister's advisor on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 210.]
In his closing, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what are Sir Peter Levene's terms of reference in relation to HRI, and when he is expected to report. If the Minister cannot answer those questions today, I should be grateful if he or a ministerial colleague will write to me. May I also have an assurance that the outcome of this review will not be vouchsafed during the summer recess, when it will not be possible for hon. Members to question it.
If the Government do not get the answer they want, they simply ask the question again. The director of Imperial college is reported to have observed that there are only four answers that the Government are willing to receive in the prior options review:
abolition, privatisation, contracting out or rationalisation.
All the public sector research establishments that are in the current review were included in the scrutiny review two years ago. If that is not evidence of dogmatism, I do not know what is. The Government's dogmatism certainly alarms the National Farmers Union in relation to HRI. It has stated:
Privatisation or further rationalisation will result in a reduction in the breadth of research carried out and the loss of critical staff, facilities and expertise.
I remind Ministers that HRI, as it now is, is a product of rationalisation. Horticultural research was endlessly reorganised and restructured during the 1980s. While there was unhappiness at the continuing instability at that time, certainly there has been widespread satisfaction with the manner in which HRI was eventually established in 1990. The customers are happy, and independent


consultants have advised that it is not a suitable candidate for privatisation. Nor, of course, is it suitable for rationalisation, which means cuts.
The unfortunate scientists at Wellesbourne are caught in the Government's pincer of the prior options review and the public expenditure survey round, with the cuts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's research funding that that has entailed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a £1.2 million cut in funding for HRI while, at the same time, the threat of privatisation was held over the institution.
As I have suggested, there is a history of destabilisation and starvation of funding at Wellesbourne. I secured an Adjournment debate on 20 March 1985, at a time when 28 posts had been lost at Wellesbourne in the previous two years and when it was anticipated that the cuts in the funding available to the Agriculture and Food Research Council between 1982 and 1987 would be of the order of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent.
I said in that Adjournment debate;
What the NVRS"—
or the national vegetable research station, as the establishment at Wellesbourne was then called—
would ask for—and I only endorse its plea—is level funding and a settled financial environment …Will Ministers accept that research needs a stable framework of finance and needs to be rescued from the hurly burly of politics? Will my hon. Friend"—
the Minister—
acknowledge that, apart from the personal difficulties and distress that career disruption causes, research is a fragile, creative enterprise? Will he acknowledge that successful research depends upon complete and enthusiastic concentration and that present uncertainties and anxieties are demoralising and likely to be damaging to the quality of research?"—[Official Report, 20 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 960–3.]
That is what I said in 1985.
In March this year, the Royal Society, with vastly greater authority, said, in effect, exactly the same. It stated:
The continuing ongoing reviews of PSREs"—
public sector research establishments—
are damaging to morale and are currently affecting adversely the ability of those concerned to get on with their scientific research, to the detriment of the nation's R+D base".
"Plus ca change", as members of the Council of Ministers perhaps say to themselves when they listen to the Minister.
There is a maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I greatly fear that HRI will be broken—not absolutely, but grievously damaged—by the combination of funding cuts and the threat of restructuring. As I said, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced a reduction in support for HRI of £1.2 million, despite having invested more than £40 million of taxpayers' money in improved facilities on the site.
The effect of the cut is that up to 90 people will lose their jobs. That is twice as many as it might have been because the Government announced the cut so late in the 1995–96 financial year that savings on staff costs had to be made in six months instead of 12. More than 70 staff who have recently transferred to Wellesbourne face possible redundancy within 12 months of their transfer—what a way

to treat those scientists who, in the public interest, have moved their homes and jobs to Wellesbourne. My constituents might echo the words of Lear:
As flies to wanton boys
are we to Ministers. What a way to manage.
Sir Peter Levene should really investigate Whitehall and the relationship between the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The way to get better value for money from public research is for the Government to be efficient and to be an intelligent commissioner and customer and take a coherent view of their strategic responsibility to sustain the science that we need. Instead, we have randomness.
The cuts at HRI form no part of any long-term strategy relevant to improving research or British horticulture. There has been no cost-benefit analysis. It beggars belief that the Government could invest £40 million of taxpayers' money in facilities, some of which have never been used, and then propose to pay more than £4 million in redundancy costs so as not to have those facilities used.
By their failure to fund HRI, the Government have scuppered their own strategy for privatisation. Were HRI ever to succeed outside the public sector—I believe that it would not be wise to try to cause it to do so—it could do so only over time and provided that it had a sufficiently stable revenue stream to sustain the range of its basic and strategic research. That would require long-term Government support through guaranteed funding arrangements, but the volatility of Government funding and the latest reductions in MAFF commitments mean that such a Government policy is a pipe dream. Basic research cannot be managed profitably and there is no point in HRI if it does not undertake the full spectrum. The Government should be willing to underwrite that infrastructural research support for a valuable, innovative and successful industry.
So why are the Government doing this? There will be no proceeds for tax cuts—certainly not this side of the general election. It is a piece of dogmatism. I believe that HRI and public sector research establishments are victims of a baleful dynamic of modern Government—the itch of newly appointed Ministers and officials to meddle in order to make their mark. The mischievous would say that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to win brownie points for privatisation with the right of the Tory party as he looks forward to open season for another leadership contest in the party, perhaps this summer and certainly by next summer. Happily, by next summer the Government will no longer be in office to inflict their dogma on the nation.

Mr. Adam Ingram: We have had an interesting and far-reaching debate and it has shown that there can be no question about the importance of public sector research establishments to Britain's science, engineering and technology base.
As hon. Members have stated, the PSREs represent a considerable national resource employing some 30,000 people and constitute a significant proportion of total Government expenditure on the nation's research and development effort.
At a time when the United Kingdom is struggling to maintain its place at the bottom end of the international competitiveness league tables, one would have thought


that, if any effort were to be expended on redefining our national science and technology needs, it would have resulted in the promotion of the PSREs, not their dismemberment. Instead, in recent years, those establishments have been subjected to rationalisation, fragmentation and privatisation. The morale of the people employed in those establishments has been seriously undermined, and a damaging air of uncertainty hangs over each of the establishments affected by the Government's manic and destructive drive towards privatisation.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Britain's science and research community has universally condemned what the Government are doing to the science base of the nation in this as in other sectors. It is also little wonder that our international competitors are rubbing their hands with glee at the chaos that is being created by the Government's approach. They know that, if a nation's scientific and research community is demoralised because of lack of Government support, the capacity of that vital component in achieving truly international competitiveness is seriously handicapped. That is what constant reviews of the public sector research establishments are doing to the United Kingdom. They are disabling us, not helping us.
The Government are clearly unwilling to accept the important role played by the PSREs in the overall fabric of the science and technology structures of the United Kingdom. The June 1994 publication by the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office on multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments stated:
PSREs exist for two main reasons: to provide support for the policy, statutory and regulatory activities of government departments; and to undertake research aimed more generally at improving wealth creation or enhancing quality of life; thus contributing to the maintenance of a strong science and technology base for the UK.
That is probably the best description of what should be the overriding mission of PSREs. It is a great pity, therefore, that the Government are not prepared to accept the principle contained within that statement and are actively looking for ways to depart from it.
The Government's statement of the specific stages of the prior options process made no mention of those essential functions of the PSREs. Instead, it focused purely on the extent to which they can be shunted out of the public sector. That stark and dogmatic attitude is all too symptomatic of the Government's overall approach to the country's science and research base.
Before I deal in detail with the debate, it is worth placing on record worrying trends in the way in which the Government are undermining other key elements of our national science and research resources. I refer to the university research base, which works closely with public sector research establishments and is also under severe strain from a lack of Government commitment.
I shall refer specifically to the report published last week by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils on their survey of research equipment in United Kingdom universities. It is a detailed report and alarming in its conclusions. I shall give three extracts from a letter about the report written by Professor Gareth Roberts, chairman of the CVCP, which was sent to the Minister for Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
The first comment that Professor Roberts makes is:
The report concludes that there has not been a significant improvement in the UK's academic research equipment since the first survey undertaken by PREST"—

the agency that was used to undertake the study—
for the ABRC in 1987. Nearly 80 per cent. of departments continue to be unable to perform critical experiments because of a lack of funding for equipment.
Professor Roberts' second point is:
UK universities rank second among G7 countries in attracting income from industry. However, industry is telling us through this report that the cuts announced last year will put UK universities at an international disadvantage through under-investment.
His third point is:
There are indications that multinational companies are beginning to switch their university research to other countries as a direct consequence of decay in the academic infrastructure. Firms already make a substantial contribution and stress that this does not absolve the Government of its responsibilities for supporting the infrastructure.
I refer to that letter and the report because of the close working relationship between universities and public sector research establishments. I shall give one example of what I am driving at.
This morning, I met the director of the Institute of Food Research. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke in some detail about the work conducted by that institute. He rightly said that the institute provides much of the research knowledge for the food industry in this country. It works closely with the university of Reading, the university of East Anglia and other universities elsewhere in the country.
The food industry is important to the United Kingdom economy with annual sales of £60 billion—almost 4 per cent. gross domestic product. Of the top 25 food companies in Europe, 15 are located in the United Kingdom. They are located here for a number of reasons—but the publicly available science expertise in food safety ranks high among them. There is a real threat to the delivery of that service to the food industry. Research equipment in universities is in a sorry state, as the CVCP's report shows, and there is the added prospect of an unwanted privatisation being imposed on the Institute of Food Research.
The Food and Drink Federation accurately summed up the situation when it said in a document:
A strong and relevant science and engineering base is essential to the technical development of the UK food and drink industry and hence to its future competitiveness. A programme of 'public good' research is also essential to continue to build consumer confidence in the food supply chain. The food and drink industry devotes substantial resources to R and B but it is not in the nature of short reaction-time industry to be able to sustain the necessary underpinning programme of long-term, multi-disciplinary basic research.
The detailed document also refers to the technology foresight programme, the research councils and some of the helpful developments that have taken place. It says:
Consultation within the food and drink industry reveals, however, a serious concern that the outcome of the current prior options reviews may undo that progress.
That is a worrying message from a very important trade association.
What the CVCP report tells us and what the Government are doing through the repeated reviews can be described only as a headlong retreat from publicly funded science, which has already damaged the country and will prove devastating in the long run unless there is a change of direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) graphically highlighted the outrageous approach of the Government to the public sector research establishments. Other Opposition Members have made telling criticisms of the Government, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Norwich, South and for that old Labour bastion of Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I hope that, in the time available, the Minister will not duck the issues that they have raised, and he does not usually do that.
My involvement in this issue goes back to 1988 when the Government made their first attempt to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory in my constituency. At that time, more than 650 people were employed there. The laboratory was recognised as a research establishment of international renown. It had
facilities which are unique in this country and, in some respects, in the world, for large-scale mechanical testing of structures and components, earthquake simulation, and … the world's most comprehensive facilities for measuring the flows and pressures of oil, air and water and mixtures of them."—[Official Report, 25 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 1232.]
In case anyone thinks that that is a local Member of Parliament's hyperbole, those were the words used to describe the laboratory by the then Minister responsible for the Government laboratories in the DTI, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), during a debate on 25 May 1989.
I do not have time to go into full and sad history of the privatisation of the laboratory, but what happened provides a salutary lesson for every establishment affected by the prior options review. Although the Government were prepared to recognise the uniqueness of the research work undertaken by this national resource, considerable efforts were made to sell it off to a French-owned company, backed by promises of massive state aid. However, the company pulled out of the deal. Within weeks of that decision, the Government appointed the firm of Touche Ross—at a cost calculated to be in excess of £100,000—to carry out a further evaluation of the laboratory.
Following discussions with the laboratory's private sector customers, the Touche Ross report concluded:
Much of the work currently carried out is dependent in whole or in part on the Laboratory being seen to be independent. A number of potential buyers might also be seen as competitors to other potential customers. There is a view in some quarters that it would be inappropriate for national standards to be in the hands of a commercial organisation that might be interested in acquiring knowledge of any equipment being calibrated against primary standards.
Those are not the words of old Labour, but of Touche Ross—the Government's consultants on the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory.
The Government did not heed that message and announced 200 redundancies. In the run-up to the eventual privatisation of the laboratory, another 200 eminent scientists—some of the best in their field—left the facility. The whole sorry saga led to the resignation of the DTI's chief scientific adviser because of a disagreement with the President of the Board of Trade about the way in which the DTI was forcing privatisation on the laboratory.
The laboratory was eventually sold in August last year to Assessment Services Ltd., a part of the Siemens group of companies. However, "sold" is undoubtedly the wrong

expression, as the Minister for Science and Technology described it as being disposed of for "a negative £1.95 million". What does that mean? In effect, we gave that company £1. 95 million of public money to take this national and unique resource off our hands. Similar cash bounties were applied to the disposal of the National Physics Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Clearly, all of us wish the purchasers of those facilities every success in the future—unlike the Government, they have the confidence to invest in the future of those facilities.
A number of points were made in the debate about the disposal of the national public sector research assets. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists has described this as the "mad options approach". That is an accurate description of the way in which the Government are handling the issue.
The House must consider what benefits will accrue to the nation from such an approach and in what way it will advance the delivery of the nation's science research and development activity. The scientific community and the industries that are dependent on the services provided by the establishments have a clear answer. They find no benefits flowing from the Government's approach and think that the nation's science and research base will suffer as a consequence.
That view has been expressed right across the scientific community, by directors of national institutes, foreign-based scientists who use the institutes, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society and a range of other eminent people. Even the Government's supporters in the other place have been known to criticise their actions. Lord Selborne, the Chairman of the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, has described the prior options review as a "pointless exercise" and said that it was an incompetent way in which to operate.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to debate at length many of the points that must be made. It is sad that a debate on a major issue affecting the country's national science and technology base had to be in Opposition time. There are many warning signals about what the Government are doing to that base. I have touched on only some of them. I hope that the Government will allow a detailed debate in their time on this issue and the wider ones around it.
There are too many important matters associated with the matter for it to be ignored, swept away and kept in secret as the Government have done with the prior options review on public sector research establishments. We have to find solutions that can enhance our science and technology base and not undermine it in the way that the Government's approach has.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): We have had a useful debate. I acknowledge the comment by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) that it was in Opposition time. Some revealing comments were made by Opposition Members, but we share a genuine appreciation of the quality of research being done in the research establishments. I do not think that it would be in any way undermined if the status of the establishments changed.
We have a science base of which we can be proud. Our universities are performing research of the highest quality, which, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride said,


is recognised by the inward investors who come to Britain. There are a variety of reasons why they come, but the accessibility of the science base, both in our research establishments and in our universities, is a key factor to which often we do not pay enough credit. I regularly hear suggestions that things are better in Germany. If one talks to German enterprises that want to invest in Britain, one gets a different picture of their views about why they come and about the excellence of our research

Sir Giles Shaw: On Germany, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of BSE is that the scientific data have been thrown out by a veterinary committee of scientists in favour of a German view of what is necessary for their marketing endeavour? Does he agree that, although we endorse the quality of British science, any prior options review must protect basic science and the integrity of what is being done and that, if there has to be competition, it must not be at the risk of affecting the present high quality of British scientists?

Mr. Taylor:: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is the distinguished Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. The debate in Germany is far removed from scientific principles and is based more on emotion. We must deal with that in direct discussions with our German friends. The way in which Germany is reconsidering its research establishments is important. In discussions with me, the German Science Minister has openly identified the fact that the German Government will have to consider closely the way in which they distribute Government money. A similar process will take place there. Neither of us, however, has any intention of undermining the importance of the science base.
Because of the shortage of time this evening, I will not have a chance to give credit to all who have made important points during the debate. The subject of Horticulture Research International, however, was raised by several of them—by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who mentioned its location in his constituency. It should be borne in mind that HRI was the subject of a rationalisation some years ago. We need continually to review the requirements of such institutions; they must therefore be continually assessed.
I hear what has been said, but the review clearly shows that further work on the reorganised status of HRI must take place. That is why Sir Peter Levene's committee is taking a look at the details now. That is in no way intended to undermine the importance of its work or to suggest a diminution of MAFF's interest in it. Of course, like many other Government Departments' programmes, some cuts in its research have had to be made by MAFF; but it still provides about £10 million of contracted research out of a total income of £22 million. So HRI is already used to diversifying the sources of its research, and I am certainly not saying that we should conclude that MAFF's relationship with HRI, should its status change, would necessarily be a consequence of that change. In short, I recognise the importance of HRI and I see no reason why it should not continue.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), a noted botanist herself, made several interesting points. I do not believe that the Royal Society was justified in

talking about haste. Indeed, there need be no argument between our parties on this subject—let us get on with the review. The Royal Society may, for once, not have been accurate.
If all the pensions mentioned by the hon. Lady crystallised there would certainly be considerable liabilities, which is why Sir Peter Levene is examining the extent to which that problem can be mitigated. But the figure arrived at by Professor Blundell would not be reached unless they all crystallised at the same time. Nevertheless, it is worth looking into the matter, because flexibility when dealing with research establishments will mean at some point that we will have to recognise any liabilities that may arise.
I should like to tackle head on another point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge, as I do not want the myth to be perpetuated. She is right to say that about £1 billion was removed by the Government from gross expenditure on research between 1986–87 and 1994–95, but most of that shortfall has come under defence spending. The hon. Lady's party would have cut that spending a great deal more savagely than anything the Government have proposed. Defence research is changing; much more research now spins into defence from the civilian sector, rather than the other way around. Spending on the science base during the period that I mentioned actually increased by £260 million, so the picture is much more positive than the hon. Lady suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a trenchant speech making it clear that she is in favour of independent research conducted outside Government circles, was still able briefly to refer to her book "Chickengate", and found time to juxtapose her authorship of it with the word "orgy". Doubtless that will boost sales, perhaps to the point where they rival the sales of books by our hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie). However, I would not go quite as far as my hon. Friend and insist that independent research cannot be undertaken in the Government sector.
I believe that the debate has been characterised by over-simplification—perhaps because of a desire for brevity. Research is not compromised because it is undertaken by the private sector, nor is it compromised because it is undertaken by the public sector. The research undertaken in both sectors is excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that we need to have a careful assessment of where research would be best undertaken in every case. In a sense, that is what we are trying to do in the prior options reviews.
Research is a continuing process: the conditions of research change, the objectives of the research change and research bodies sometimes need to change their relationships with each other. It would be foolish of the Government if they did not say from time to time, "We need to have a structured review right across the sector and we need to look at all the research establishments that are available." I am astonished that Opposition Members, in the new Labour context, are now such devotees of tight financial controls that they do not share my motivation in trying to get the best quality research and value for money for what the Government are trying to do.
Departments and research councils spend approximately £1.3 billion in civil research establishments, which is one fifth of total Government expenditure on science and technology—it totals about


£6.2 billion. That is a significant amount, and it is not something for which I want to apologise. I emphasise that we have a considerable interest in ensuring that, when we spend that money, we spend it in the proper way and that the research establishments that provide the research are doing it in the most effective and considered manner. The sponsoring department—swhether they be Government Departments or research councils—also have a vested view, which is why they have been intimately involved in the research that has been carried out.
Developments in science have obviously influenced our thinking in that regard. We are now moving into genetic, biological and biotechnological research, which needs to be taken into account in the way in which we work with the research establishments and the priority that we give to different areas of research.
I refute the comments that have been made about the way in which the research establishments—including the National Engineering Laboratory—have been handled. Liabilities are attached to those establishments that crystallise at the point of transfer. The hon. Member for East Kilbride will be glad to hear that the National Engineering Laboratory has increased its employment in his constituency since the transfer to Assessment Services Ltd. The National Physical Laboratory—which is now managed as a Government company by Serco—is increasing the number of its scientists and the range of its work.
Labour Members have not recognised that the reviews enable us to look more closely at some of the advantages of having the establishments in the private sector or at arm's length from Government. I do not accept that the prior options process means that privatisation will always be the result. One of the councils at which am looking—the Council of the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which employs 1,800 people—still remains as it was, which is possible under the prior options review.
We should not underestimate the potential benefits of the prior options review: it frees establishments from the constraints of public sector status, it encourages them to build links with a wider range of customers, it frees them from the constraints of ownership and it gives them greater freedom to commission or to support research from a wider range of suppliers. It does not free the Government from our responsibility to support the best quality science, but it gives us more freedom to determine how best to do it. Those are important objectives and, by themselves, they would justify the reviews that are taking place.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—I will not have the time to mention them all in my reply. I listened to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) make his points. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) mentioned the Institute of Food Research. I have heard all the points that were raised and I shall try to take them into consideration, although I cannot refer to them in my winding-up speech.
I conclude with a clear observation. Labour's motion refers to the
dogma-driven privatisation objectives of the Prior Options Review".

There is no dogma associated with the prior options review, and the status quo can be a part of it. The dogma is on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members are so obsessed with their dislike of the private sector that they are not prepared to come to the House and admit that quality science can be conducted in that sector.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 281.

Division No. 141]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Austin-Walker, John
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, D N
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Church, Judith
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Margaret


Corston, Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)






Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Spellar, John


Maclennan, Robert
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Alice
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)



Timms Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping,Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Touhig, Don


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Milburn, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Audrey


Mudie, George
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Eric Clarke.


O'Hara, Edward





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Ashby, David





Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher
 
Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David






Lord, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


Mills, Iain
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexil'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to science, engineering and technology, as reaffirmed in the Forward Look 1996 (Command 3257-I); and endorses the programme of prior options reviews of public sector research

establishments, which aims to secure the best possible quality science and technology for the United Kingdom with the best value for money from the substantial public resources spent on science.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

INSIDER DEALING

That the draft Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

COMPANIES

That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Uncertificated Securities) (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 1322), dated 16th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94F(1)(b) (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)),

That the Special Grant Report on Community Care Special Grant and Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1996–97 be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Life Sentences

Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the relatives of Jean Crowie, who was murdered by her husband 17 years ago. Her body was buried in the garden of the marital home and not discovered until August 1994. Her family are outraged that her husband, William Crowie—who showed little remorse in court—was sentenced to only five years' imprisonment. The petition reads:
To the House of Commons. The petition of the people of Plymouth and the South-West declares that in Lincoln Crown Court on 13 October 1995, William Crowie was sentenced to five years' imprisonment after murdering his wife and concealing the body in the back garden of his marital home for 17 years.


Therefore your petitioners request that the House of Commons pass legislation to provide for mandatory life sentences for those who commit murder. And your petitioners remain as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
The petition is signed by Rose Hayes and Wendy Jasper, sisters of Jean Crowie; by Malcolm Westmore and Andrew Edwards, the brother and son of Jean Crowie respectively; and by 2,000 other people.

To lie upon the Table.

Postcodes (Beddington)

Mr. Nigel Forman: It is my pleasant duty to present a petition signed by Mr. Brian Keenan of 22 Bristow road, Beddington, and a large number of local residents in the Beddington North ward in my constituency and their supporters.
The petition draws attention to the problem of postcodes in Beddington and the fact that too many of my constituents feel disadvantaged by the way in which the Royal Mail persists in allocating a Croydon postcode when they want a Sutton postcode, reflecting their actual geographical location in the London borough of Sutton. The petition reads:
To the House of Commons. The petition of the Residents of Beddington North ward within the London Borough of Sutton and their supporters declares that the petitioners wish for their addresses and postcodes to reflect truly the actual geographical location of their residences, in place of those of the neighbouring borough of Croydon, which have been imposed by Royal Mail.
The petitioners therefore respectfully request the House of Commons to find time to debate and request the Minister of the Crown responsible to arrange for the necessary corrective action to be taken. The petitioners remain hopeful that their wishes will receive the favourable consideration of the House of Commons, for which they will be truly grateful.

To lie upon the Table.

Homepower (Closure)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Coe.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends about a situation that has led to more than 800 people mainly in Yorkshire, Humberside and the east midlands losing their jobs. Those job losses are a direct consequence of the Government's privatisation of the electricity industry and pose serious questions about the most basic right of employees when redundancies arise.
I declare my membership of the Unison trade union, which represents many of the people directly affected. From my knowledge of the events leading to those huge job losses, the Unison officers concerned are to be strongly commended for striving long and hard to represent their members' interests in an extremely difficult situation. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Dave Mitchell, the Unison district officer, for the help that he has given some of my constituents.
My interest in the matter started with concern for the future of the former Yorkshire electricity board showroom in Wood street, Wakefield. That showroom has existed for as long as I can remember, and has, over the years, given excellent customer service to many of my constituents, particularly elderly people and those with low incomes who have traditionally paid their electricity accounts there through regular contributions.
Following privatisation, the regional electricity companies reviewed their retail operations, and in July 1993 Homepower Retail Ltd. was formed as a joint venture between Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity. Later that year, following a ballot, the Homepower Retail employees accepted substantial reductions in pay, in many instances by £3,500 per annum, and reduced holidays and other conditions, as part of an attempt to reduce the new company's cost base. Despite those changes, the sales performance remained poor; by early 1995, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity were looking to sell Homepower, and a major shop closure programme was proposed in readiness for the sale, involving 27 of the 59 outlets in Yorkshire and Humberside.
I raised my concerns about the future of Homepower at a reception held in the House of Commons by Yorkshire Electricity in March last year. A number of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber today were present at that time. I was concerned to be told that evening that the Wakefield showroom was to be included in the closures.
The following morning, I arranged for my constituency researcher to visit the showroom for a dialogue about how we might support attempts to retain that important facility. The staff there had no knowledge of the closure proposal. I was told subsequently by Yorkshire Electricity that it had made a mistake, and that the Wakefield showroom was to stay open for the time being.
Two severance packages were offered to those involved in the closure programme at the time. The first was a maximum payment of 18 months' salary to someone with 25 years' service leaving in 10 days. The second,


a reduced package for those refusing an offer of suitable on-going employment, was seven-and-a-half months' salary for someone with 25 years' service.
PowerStore, which owns electricity stores in the south of England, bid for Homepower, and a business transfer agreement was made on 21 February 1995. However, the completion and actual transfer of the stores and employees did not take effect until 8 May 1995. Mr. Clive Vlotman, the chairman of the PowerStore group, issued a letter dated 10 March 1995 to the recognised trade unions giving assurances which said:
That as a minimum, the overall value of existing terms and conditions will be maintained and indeed, in some areas, more beneficial arrangements will be proposed
That any member of staff transferring into Powerstore from Homepower Retail, who within the period of 12 months after completion, find themselves in a redundancy situation, receive the same terms as to compensation on termination of employment (except for those relating to occupational pensions) as those offered to redundant employees as a consequence of the business transfer 
Staff transferring to the new employer received a payment of £1,300 in recognition of loss of benefits such as pension and share save entitlements. I understand that the purchase price for the business was only £2, and that an agreement was reached between the vendors and the purchasers to the effect that, if the number of employees to be transferred increased, Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity would reduce the purchase price of the stock by between£1,000 and £7,500 per employee, depending upon the category of the employee.
In correspondence with me, the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity confirmed that his company and East Midlands Electricity
did many things to give PowerStore a good start.
One of Yorkshire Electricity's senior managers, in a telephone conversation with me on 20 May, denied that his company's actions in this respect were motivated by a wish to avoid severance costs in respect of Homepower employees. Those directly affected seriously question that point.
As the Minister will be aware, Homepower went into administration on 29 April. He may have some knowledge of the circumstances from the contents of Mr. Clive Vlotman's affidavit and the report prepared by Arthur Andersen, the administrator. On 29 April, the trade unions were advised that redundancies could result, and that it might not be possible fully to comply with the consultation requirements in legislation.
On 1 May, the trade unions had the first formal meeting with the administrators, with Unison stating that it considered the 29 April letter to be a declaration of redundancy, with the consequence that Clive Vlotman's guarantee of severance payments in the letter of 10 March 1995 must apply. At that stage, the administrators said that, while redundancies were likely, no definite decision had been made—although temporary and agency employees had already been removed from head office.
The administrators would make no redundancy payments, and claims were to be against the Department for Education and Employment redundancy fund. Confirmation was given that, if another electrical retailer bought the business in whole or in part, transfer of undertakings legislation would be likely to apply.
On 3 May, the administrators advised by telephone that they intended to make 17 individuals redundant later that day. They withdrew the proposal after a threat from the trade unions to seek a court injunction. I am told that, at a meeting with the trade unions six days later, the administrators refused to produce information on prospective purchasers, detailed proposals on redundancies or information concerning selection criteria and the method of implementation. Health and safety concerns were raised at that meeting, because employees in shops had been threatened with violence by customers who had been refused either refunds or access to previously purchased goods, on the instructions of the administrators.
On 13 May, the administrators stated that 31 stores were to be closed, with about 250 job losses and a further 20 to 25 job losses at the head office at Normanton near Wakefield. Employees were sent home immediately, and selection appears to have been based on who was in the shops at the time.
Later—I believe on 20 May—the logistics department and all drivers were made redundant. The drivers received a letter calling them to a meeting at Normanton. They were told to bring their vehicles for inspection. Once they had all gathered at the meeting, their keys were collected and they were told that they were dismissed and should go home. Only after a protest were they given their bus fares.
On 30 May, the administrators advised of an additional round of closures, again without prior consultation or notification, with a further 295 retailing jobs to go. That meant that trading was taking place in only 20 of the 85 shops originally taken into administration. By that point, only 56 employees remained at head office and 154 at the remaining 20 shops.
As a consequence of the shop closures, an associated company—Powerdirect Receipting, which collects electricity accounts through its shops—had to advise its work force of 203 that their employment was being terminated, by reason of redundancy, with effect from 31 May. By that date, more than 800 people had lost their jobs as a result of the company being in administration, the vast majority of whom had no advance notification—merely being turned away from work or being told not to turn up the following day.
A number of my Wakefield constituents have been directly affected, not only by the shabby way in which their employment was terminated, but by the financial implications.
My constituent Mrs. Wendy Gosnay, of Thornes, Wakefield, worked for Yorkshire Electricity and its successor companies for eight years, including two on a youth training scheme. Her employment at the Castleford store ended on 17 May. She expects a baby at the end of August and will lose maternity benefits as a direct result of this affair. She has been advised that she is owed nearly —8,500 in redundancy payments.
My constituent Mrs. Beverley Finnerty, of Alverthorpe road, Wakefield, lost her job at the Dewsbury shop on 31 May. She wrote to me on that day and said:
I am one of these poor unfortunates who worked for Yorkshire Electricity for 12 years, only to be sold like a piece of meat to a company owned by Clive Vlotman … along with my colleagues, I viewed this sell-out with some trepidation but I was assured by my Counsellors (one of who was employed by Yorkshire Electricity), that should the new venture fail within twelve months, we would be


entitled to the same redundancy package as staff not required by the new company in May 1995…suffice it to say that Yorkshire Electricity now denies all knowledge of their promise…to add insult to injury, the administrator, Arthur Andersen, has treated the workforce with the sensitivity of a military junta, laying people off as they come in to work, denying holiday entitlements etc.
To our tired and dispirited little workforce, it seems that everyone has washed their hands of us and this is the second time in a year that this has happened.
Mrs. Finnerty has lost more than £13,000 in redundancy payments.
Other staff who were counselled by Yorkshire Electricity before the transfer described the way in which certain counsellors employed by the company left the room to check with the main business before returning to confirm that the severance guarantee was underwritten by Yorkshire Electricity and by East Midlands Electricity.
The staff I have spoken to are firmly of the opinion that those companies—the original owners—bear a very clear responsibility for the situation that their former employees now find themselves in. They firmly believe that the disposal of the company to Mr. Vlotman was undoubtedly a means by which to avoid what would otherwise have been substantial severance costs.
The point has also been made that Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity should have ensured that Homepower was being sold to a reputable business man with the ability to safeguard the business and its employees. The business's failure within 12 months clearly suggests that that was not the case.
In my view—I reflect the views of those who have lost their jobs—although Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity may be able to avoid a legal responsibility for the redundancy costs, they have a very clear moral responsibility for what has happened to their former employees.
The Government brought about the privatisation of this industry, and they, too, have a responsibility to ensure that those companies properly compensate their employees for what has happened. At the very least, the companies should bridge the gap between the statutory redundancy paid by the state and the enhanced severance that would be due if the company had closed in May 1995.
The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that laws on redundancy procedures are followed to the letter in relation to advanced warnings and consultation. They should ensure that administrators do not see themselves as above the law, and that they concern themselves with employment rights as well as with creditors' interests.
There is a fear that, following the likely closure of all the stores, a management buy-out or external purchaser may then reopen a part of the business and recruit new staff in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
I end with my concerns about the impact of this affair on consumers. Yorkshire Electricity has told me that customers can now pay bills at post offices. They cannot, however, query bills at post offices, or seek advice there on issues related to their electricity consumption. That facility is no longer available to those—particularly elderly people——who prefer and need face-to-face contact. I have been told of a queue of elderly people forming

outside one of the PowerStore shops in Huddersfield the day after it had closed. The people involved had no idea how to make alternative arrangements.
It has also not gone unnoticed that, immediately before the Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity sale to PowerStore, the company had actively encouraged customers to buy through credit arrangements. Many customers took on such commitments and made their repayments to credit companies through the shops on a weekly or monthly basis. This is no longer possible, and may well result in serious difficulties for many consumers.
I believe that the Government have a direct responsibility for all the problems I have identified. I hope that the Minister will face up to that responsibility and make it clear how the Government intend to deal with the various issues to which I have referred.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): It is conventional on these occasions for the Minister to congratulate the hon. Member who has secured the Adjournment debate, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) wishes me to use that idiom, because he has raised an issue that is clearly of concern in his constituency and others. Indeed, it is an important matter that raises the question of the proper protection of employees on the transfer of their employer and in the unfortunate case of their employer becoming insolvent.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was not privy to any of the arrangements and do not know where the residual liabilities lie, but there are courts and tribunals that can test those matters, and, if it is alleged that there has been behaviour of an even more serious nature, complaints can be made to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the fact that, in his view—I am sure that he expressed it in good faith and that he speaks for others, too—the administrator did not comply with the redundancy consultation legislation. I should like to reply to him right away on that point on the record, because the questions that he raises are matters on which legislation provides for a complaint to be made by a recognised trade union or other representative—they do not necessarily have to be trade unions—to an industrial tribunal, which may award compensation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine that possibility with those whose advice he values. It is not for me to comment on the administrator's actions. If a complaint is made, it will be for a tribunal to determine whether there has been any breach of the law.
It is always unfortunate when an employer becomes insolvent. Employees, of course, may be particularly vulnerable in such circumstances. Our law has long recognised that, and provided particular safeguards. I shall return to that issue later. Before then, and in view of the time constraints on Adjournment debates, I must ask the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of a conversation that we had before the debate began, that if there are any points which, through a lack of time—not an absence of willingness—I do not manage to get around to, please to mention them again to me, preferably in writing, and I shall ensure that they are all properly looked into.
I understand that Homepower Retail Ltd. was a loss-making retail joint venture. It was owned by Yorkshire Electricity Group plc and East Midlands


Electricity plc. The company was acquired on 8 May 1995 by Homepower Stores Ltd., which is part of a larger group of companies headed by PowerStore Holdings Ltd.
The hon. Gentleman outlined a litany of events. I can show him the timetable of events as I understand them, and send him a written version rather than take more of the time available tonight. I dare say that we agree on some of the core facts anyway, so a second recitation of them by me will not help the hon. Gentleman or his constituents.
At the end of May, the administrators concluded that, because the industry had expressed no interest in taking on a major electrical retailer, a sale as a going concern would not be possible. Job losses on the scale that followed are always to be regretted. I am sure that we all hope that those people who have been made redundant are able to find suitable new employment quickly.
The Government have long recognised that, when a business is sold over the heads of employees, special protection may be required to ensure that their interests are protected. Such protection is provided by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—commonly known as the TUPE regulations.
Those regulations provide, among other things, for employees' contracts to be transferred to their new employment; for the dismissal of employees in connection with a transfer to be automatically unfair unless it is for a genuine economic, technical or organisational reason—for example, genuine redundancy that would have occurred irrespective of the transfer of the business; and for representatives of the employees to be informed and consulted about any measures to be taken in connection with the transfer. That was quite a central point of the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction.
The regulations provide a detailed package of measures aimed at providing protection for employees in such circumstances. It is not for me, however, to say when the regulations apply in specific cases; that is a matter for the courts and tribunals, but the proper statutory framework exists. In respect of the acquisition of Homepower, I understand that the arrangements for staff who transferred were discussed and agreed with the trade unions concerned.
I also understand that, in addition to any statutory rights that the employees had on the acquisition of Homepower Retail, employees who transferred to the new company were given a guarantee that they would receive an enhanced redundancy payment if they were made redundant within 12 months of the transfer.
I believe that there is some dispute about who is responsible for that commitment—whether it is Homepower Stores Ltd., which is now unable to meet it because it has become insolvent, or Yorkshire Electricity and East Midlands Electricity. I believe that the two electricity companies and the administrator are all strongly of the view that it was an undertaking given by the purchaser of the business.
Whatever the facts of the matter—it would not be right for me to comment further, as it was a purely commercial transaction in which the Government were not involved in any way—I fully appreciate the distress and worry felt by the employees concerned. Therefore, it may be helpful if I explain the assistance that my Department can give in such circumstances.
When an employer is insolvent, any employee who is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment may apply for payment from the national insurance fund. Payment is usually made within about six weeks and often, in a straightforward case, more quickly. I am aware that we have already received some claims from former employees of Homepower, and I can assure the House that we will make payments as quickly as possible. Indeed, I hope that the first payments will be authorised this week.
My Department can offer help with other debts owed to the former employees. There is a guarantee covering any arrears of wages, holiday and notice pay due to them and we are also able to make contributions into the resources of a pension scheme in respect of unpaid contributions due from the employer.
Unfortunately, at this stage, I am not clear what payments may be due to the employees, but I note from the hon. Gentleman's comments tonight and his early-day motion 916 that, for example, there may be an issue concerning deductions from the employees' pay in respect of union contributions that have not been paid over. We may be able to reimburse the employees, as it would count as arrears of pay.
It has been suggested that the remaining solvent companies in the PowerStore group should take responsibility for the guarantees given to the Homepower employees at the time of its acquisition. It is, of course, not unknown for a parent company to support an ailing subsidiary and, at first thought, it is rather tempting to suggest that this might be underpinned by some statutory mechanism. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that the net result could be to pull down other companies in a group.
It is not unusual to have a group of companies, some of which at any particular time are flourishing, and some of which are not. If one limited company were forced to underwrite the actions of another, the effect might simply be to damage the interests of employees in the profitable parts of the group, raising questions as to why the interests of employees and others associated with those parts of the group should suffer through the actions of another company. I respectfully say that that would not make sense.
The hon. Member for Wakefield called for the establishment of an urgent inquiry into the affair. I understand that it is tempting, each time we see a situation with which we do not agree, to call for a Government inquiry. I must inform the hon. Gentleman, however, that, while the Secretary of State has powers of inquiry under the provisions of the Companies Acts 1985 and 1989, those powers may be exercised only when there is good reason to suspect fraud, misfeasance or misconduct in relation to the affairs of a limited company.
It may be part of the hon. Gentleman's allegation that such things exist. If so, I shall not, of course, stand in the way of his advancing the giving of information and the laying of due process. The powers are not intended as a substitute for, or in any way to be supportive of, the usual civil remedies available to creditors, including employees or former employees who are in dispute about their contractual entitlements.
To return to the main thrust of the debate, I think that there is substantial agreement between us that there is a need for proper protection for employees whose employer


is sold over their heads or who may be affected by corporate insolvency. We believe that we have established the proper framework through which such rights and protections may be exercised. It is a matter for the courts and tribunals to determine whether there has been any breach of the law. That is not a matter for the Government. In my experience, trade unions—the hon. Member for Wakefield has said that he is associated with one—have skills and knowledge in the general area, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be consulting them further.
I hope that hon. Member for Wakefield will take some comfort from the assistance that is available to former employees of Homepower. I am sure that, with the progressive and sustained improvement that we have seen in the economy, many of them will soon be back in suitable employment, but it is not for me to palliate, mitigate or in any way deny the sheer misery of losing one's job, especially in such circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.